Just forced myself to watch Casablanca...

[pauk]

...to see what all the fuss was about... and i think this is the most overrated movie in history...

Its just a typical 40s cliche boring dialogue bla bla bla spammed movie about a "handsome", charming, witty, and all that jazz man throwing cheezy (although "classical") unnatural lines..... and the final scene fell flat with me.... one great thing i can say about the movie is Ingrid Bergman, one of the most beautiful women ive ever seen...

I didnt think it was bad... nor do i think it was great... probably great for its time... but i am not in that time... and i have seen much greater movies...

Sorry, but I do have to disagree with this films reputation.... to say that it is the greatest movie of all time or even be along side titles such as Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, The Good the Bad and The Ugly etc. on the pedestal is absurd....

Does anybody here actually think this movie was great or the best movie of all time? Or can anybody explain why this movie is/was so "GREAT"?
Is it just Nostalgia for the old folks?

[RidonKs]

i agree it's overrated, but bear in mind the context. middle of ww2, very early in cinematic history. it was a stock and trade film that just touched a lot of hearts... and there's no question it was among the best movies of the time, even

the cheesy cliche 'unnatural' dialogue was just the style for the time. drawing the audience into the truth of the film was important, but not to the extent realism is prioritized today. it was about performance art. in that regard, there were a number of great performances.

especially this guy

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/325069_f520.jpg


good, maybe great, only best in the hearts of serious romantics

[Dolphin]

...to see what all the fuss was about... and i think this is the most overrated movie in history...

Its just a typical 40s cliche boring dialogue bla bla bla spammed movie about a "handsome", charming, witty, and all that jazz man throwing cheezy (although "classical") unnatural lines..... and the final scene fell flat with me.... one great thing i can say about the movie is Ingrid Bergman, one of the most beautiful women ive ever seen...

I didnt think it was bad... nor do i think it was great... probably great for its time... but i am not in that time... and i have seen much greater movies...

Sorry, but I do have to disagree with this films reputation.... to say it belongs along side titles such as Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, The Good the Bad and The Ugly etc. on the pedestal is absurd....

Does anybody here actually think this movie was great or the best movie of all time? Or can anybody explain why this movie is/was so "GREAT"?

A couple points:

1. I agree that I don't have Casablanca as high as many "experts". Wouldn't be in my top 10 for movies before the 1960's even. That being said, I get the sense I appreciate it a lot more than you do. It is a very crisp, well done movie. Good story. Really not one fault I can think of with the movie. The reason I don't have it as high as some others is not really because of any faults, but because there are many outstanding movies that came from that era that I'm surprised many people don't think are equal to, or better than Casablanca. And that's just movies from that era.

2. You said "Sorry, but I do have to disagree with this films reputation.... to say it belongs along side titles such as Godfather, Shawshank Redemption, The Good the Bad and The Ugly etc. on the pedestal is absurd...."

The fact you brought up three movies that every kid from our generation has seen and gushes over, tells me you probably don't have a true appreciation for movies of that time period. Not an insult. I just feel if you come back here and answer honestly, you would say you haven't paid as much attention to movies of that era compared to movies from the 70's-present. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I'm the opposite, I love movies from the 30'-60's more than modern movies. I'm a bit biased that way and that's not to say I don't watch modern movies (LotR trilogy is my second favorite film of all time).

You also said, you had to force yourself to watch Casablanca. Again, if you have to force yourself to watch that movie, then you probably don't really appreciate movies of that era. Kinda hard to put it on the same level as other movies when you simply don't have the same bias towards the films and their style, acting, cinematography, etc.

[DeuceWallaces]

Seventy years ago.

[FatComputerNerd]

The Good the Bad and the Ugly, while a good and fun movie, is overrated.

[Rnbizzle]

The Wilt Chamberlain of movies? :confusedshrug:

[-p.tiddy-]

Where is that little group of posters arguing with me that art mediums don't progress for the better? lol

they should be all up your ass in this thread about how this would still hold up strong today...movie snobs :facepalm

[L.Kizzle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mC0Nc5vXRQ

[RoseCity07]

This movie is so good that I went out and bought the 4k release last week. The 70th anniversary edition is worth the money.

The great thing about movies like Casablanca is the dialogue and the music. There are no throw away lines. All the dialogue is excellent. The lines you have to wait to hear in most modern movies are lines a person with a bit part gets in this movie.

It's kind of sad to me when someone can watch Casablanca and not understand why it is considered one of the best movies ever made.

[RaininTwos]

The Good the Bad and the Ugly, while a good and fun movie, is overrated.

gtjo

[bagelred]

Seventy years ago.

This.

[Lebron23]

Nosferafu is the GOAT Oldest film. It's still a very watchable movie.

[L.Kizzle]

Nosferafu is the GOAT Oldest film. It's still a very watchable movie.
Ever watched Stormy Weather?

[-p.tiddy-]

my favorite "old movie" is The Hustler

but I'm not going to pretend like it would be an Oscar winner if it were released today...lol

[Lebron23]

Ever watched Stormy Weather?


Not yet.

[RidonKs]

Where is that little group of posters arguing with me that art mediums don't progress for the better? lol

they should be all up your ass in this thread about how this would still hold up strong today...movie snobs :facepalm
pretty sure i argued that with you. art mediums don't necessarily progress for the better. the best movies today are hardly better than the best movies of the 70s... only argument you could make is that more good (and bad) movies are made, but that's a matter of quantity not quality. and while graphics and special effects edge closer and closer to the real thing, that is not artistic progress, merely technological progress.

but no, casablanca would not hold up at all today, as if that 70 year gap even warrants the comparison, considering 95% of cinematic history has taken place over that span. still, it's not a good fit for what modern public audiences have become accustomed to.

[FatComputerNerd]

gtjo

I like Clint, and I enjoy a good western now and again. In fact, I have most of his movies in my library.

I just don't think it belongs at #5 on the top 250.

[Dolphin]

my favorite "old movie" is The Hustler

but I'm not going to pretend like it would be an Oscar winner if it were released today...lol

If I put my 10 favorite movies from before the 60's up against my 10 favorite movies since the 80's, I know the former 10 would average out to a better score than the latter. You can conclude that that means I think many movies from 50+ years ago would be more deserving of an Oscar today than modern candidates.

It's all a matter of opinion. Sure, we can deduce that most people of our generation prefer modern films, but there is no proof at all out there that can convince me that the best modern films are better than the best films from half a century ago and further.

[-p.tiddy-]

pretty sure i argued that with you. art mediums don't necessarily progress for the better. the best movies today are hardly better than the best movies of the 70s... only argument you could make is that more good (and bad) movies are made, but that's a matter of quantity not quality. and while graphics and special effects edge closer and closer to the real thing, that is not artistic progress, merely technological progress.

but no, casablanca would not hold up at all today, as if that 70 year gap even warrants the comparison, considering 95% of cinematic history has taken place over that span. still, it's not a good fit for what modern public audiences have become accustomed to.
on average today's movies are MUCH better than the 70s...it's not even close either

if the shitty ass remake of Friday the 13th came out instead of the "classic" black and white original that resembles a home movie then people would declare it to be the greatest thing ever created.

and the art technique that goes alone with that technology progresses...for SURE...along with the amount of people that know the trade...it is a progression in art technique.



anyway...I don't care to get into that again...we can just agree to disagree

[-p.tiddy-]

If I put my 10 favorite movies from before the 60's up against my 10 favorite movies since the 80's, I know the former 10 would average out to a better score than the latter. You can conclude that that means I think many movies from 50+ years ago would be more deserving of an Oscar today than modern candidates.

It's all a matter of opinion. Sure, we can deduce that most people of our generation prefer modern films, but there is no proof at all out there that can convince me that the best modern films are better than the best films from half a century ago and further.
if you put your 10 favs from pre 60 and your 10 favs from today all in a movie theater full of people that aren't familiar...the 10 from today would be the leading sellers...I'm sure of it

unless your 10 favorite modern films are just awful :lol

[-p.tiddy-]

a movie like Pulp Fiction couldn't even exist pre 1960...art taboos have progressed as well...it's just better, period

and it will continue to get better...regardless of how many crappy remakes Hollywood pumps out

[andgar923]

Speaking of overrated movies, Bram Stoker's Dracula was not just overrated, but one of the worst movies I've ever seen period.

How that movie got any praise, let alone award nominations and awards baffles the shit outta me.

It's even bad for a B-movie which I believe this movie was trying to be.

Only one performance worth noting, and even then it wasn't anything spectacular. What a piece of shit that was.

[FatComputerNerd]

My favorite pre-1960 movie off the top of my head would probably be Bicycle Thieves (1948).

In general I prefer more modern movies though, mostly due to quality/technology advances.

[FatComputerNerd]

Speaking of overrated movies, Bram Stoker's Dracula was not just overrated, but one of the worst movies I've ever seen period.

How that movie got any praise, let alone award nominations and awards baffles the shit outta me.

It's even bad for a B-movie which I believe this movie was trying to be.

Only one performance worth noting, and even then it wasn't anything spectacular. What a piece of shit that was.

Disagree. I loved that movie. The Cinematography was amazing for it's time.

[Dolphin]

My favorite pre-1960 movie off the top of my head would probably be Bicycle Thieves (1948).

In general I prefer more modern movies though, mostly due to quality/technology advances.

Better than Vertigo?....not so sure about that. lol

[andgar923]

Disagree. I loved that movie. The Cinematography was amazing for it's time.

It was shot in the 90s!!!!

The acting was horrible!

Was I the only one laughing at the cheesy dialogue and horrendous accents? those English accents were a travesty.

The effects appeared to be some 1960s acid trip kind. At first I thought I was watching a parody, but it wasn't.

[FatComputerNerd]

Better than Vertigo?....not so sure about that. lol

I said my favorite, not best. Best is a matter of opinion anyways.

[andgar923]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moaW8LRusak&feature=related

Great movie!

:coleman:

[FatComputerNerd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moaW8LRusak&feature=related

Great movie!

:coleman:

Hmm, lol. Maybe I remember it being better than it actually was. Guilty pleasure from my childhood I guess.

[Dolphin]

I said my favorite, not best. Best is a matter of opinion anyways.

Sorry, not trying to argue. I meant favorite as well. Have you seen both?

[FatComputerNerd]

Sorry, not trying to argue. I meant favorite as well. Have you seen both?

No apologies needed. I have seen Vertigo, and I know it's good. I just named one of my favorite oldies off the top of my head.

I would also list Paths of Glory (1957) as one of my top pre-1960 films.

Also can't forget All Quiet on the Western Front (1930).

[andgar923]

Hmm, lol. Maybe I remember it being better than it actually was. Guilty pleasure from my childhood I guess.

LOl it's cool.

I remember it vividly cause I just saw it 4 years ago. My fianc

[johndeeregreen]

but I'm not going to pretend like it would be an Oscar winner if it were released today...lol
Are you ****ing retarded?

[DonDadda59]

Are you ****ing retarded?

Yes :oldlol:

[Dolphin]

No apologies needed. I have seen Vertigo, and I know it's good. I just named one of my favorite oldies off the top of my head.

I would also list Paths of Glory (1957) as one of my top pre-1960 films.

Also can't forget All Quiet on the Western Front (1930).

If you haven't seen them, From Here To Eternity, Double Indemnity, All About Eve, North By Northwest, Anastasia and Grand Hotel are some other really good oldies.

[eliteballer]

You have to look at Casablancas influence...and its a far better film than anything the OP's country has likely produced

[Rake2204]

I was okay with Casablanca. I watched that and Gone With the Wind for the first time within a week of each other last year. I much preferred the former.

[RidonKs]

i just saw Gone With the Wind a few weeks ago for the first time and i was blown away. i expected to be entertained but a bit disappointed. it went way beyond that. one of the best movies i've ever seen... though i doubt i'll be sitting through it again any time soon.

Casablanca doesn't even hold a candle to it imo

[Rake2204]

i just saw Gone With the Wind a few weeks ago for the first time and i was blown away. i expected to be entertained but a bit disappointed. it went way beyond that. one of the best movies i've ever seen... though i doubt i'll be sitting through it again any time soon.

Casablanca doesn't even hold a candle to it imo
In the interest of full disclosure, I watched Gone With the Wind on double VHS, in small increments over the course of an entire week or more. I'm thinking that could have severely affected my feelings on the film.

[RidonKs]

In the interest of full disclosure, I watched Gone With the Wind on double VHS, in small increments over the course of an entire week or more. I'm thinking that could have severely affected my feelings on the film.
err... yeah. definitely. lol

though i don't blame you, i probably still wouldn't have finished it had i started it at home. i caught it at a theater with just a wee intermission in the middle... patience is always easier in the presence of a whole host of people. and if you pay i suppose.

splitting it up like that, you still get to witness all the epic scenes and civil war events, and there's some great dialogue sprinkled throughout. but it makes it a lot harder to key in on the real strengths, the intertwined character narratives and the ups and downs of their relationships with one another, always in relation to the war. the journey of scarlett o'hara is one of the greatest ever told on screen imo.

[Pointguard]

This movie is so good that I went out and bought the 4k release last week. The 70th anniversary edition is worth the money.

The great thing about movies like Casablanca is the dialogue and the music. There are no throw away lines. All the dialogue is excellent. The lines you have to wait to hear in most modern movies are lines a person with a bit part gets in this movie.

It's kind of sad to me when someone can watch Casablanca and not understand why it is considered one of the best movies ever made.
Yeah, this is it. It's written like a short story where you have to listen to every line. It's glamour is that the movie has a style in delivering the lines and has that musical backdrop to make them work. The movie had a lot of catch lines that was popular for the next 50 years. I imagine it was the first movie to really use irony, sarcasm and wit to move its plot and create tension - tho this is guess work - talking movies were still in its baby stages at this time. The movie has style and grace which is not easy to pull off. The Matrix stood out in part because it had this quality.

The director knew how to transition from soft shots to a new cold reality. When the movie didn't move thru the lines of its characters it used facial expressions and stories to guide you. It was a well concieved movie. Too dated in the style of yesteryear but a great study of film making and early American culture.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Casablanca and Citizen Kane are the two most overrated movies ever.

[JustinJDW]

I've never seen "Gone with the Wind", but Jesus Christ, is that flick really four hours? What the hell? Am I supposed to dedicated a whole day to watching that? Psh.

[dunksby]

If a movie is genuinely good, it stays good, Hitchcock, Bunuel, Kubrick's films are masterpieces forever cause they are products of an original approach to film making and were carefully created by brilliant minds.

[bdreason]

I'm not really a fan of older older movies (I haven't watched many), but Gone With the Wind was/is an amazing film.


I have seen Casablanca as well, and I didn't enjoy it much. But like I said, I'm far from a movie critic.

[BankShot]

If a movie is genuinely good, it stays good

:applause:

[lovethetriangle]

Ever watched Stormy Weather?


Black movie?

[Jackass18]

I'd say Casablanca is only slightly overrated. I'd say it's a borderline top 100 film.

[RaininTwos]

I've never seen "Gone with the Wind", but Jesus Christ, is that flick really four hours? What the hell? Am I supposed to dedicated a whole day to watching that? Psh.
i felt the same way but that movie was really good man. check it out. a lot of history was made and the special effects for that time was impressive. the scenes where everything was getting burned down due to sherman's march to the sea was visually captivating.

i really love that movie.

[KevinNYC]

Casablanca and Citizen Kane are the two most overrated movies ever.

But still two of the greatest movies ever. I've always loved Casablanca, but I was disappointed by my first viewing of Citizen Kane, I was expected to be overwhelmed because it was GREAT ART, and I reacted to that. For me that's a movie that gets better upon second viewing. Vertigo is one those for me too. One of the issues is that the culture has absorbed all the things that made Citizen Kane so startling and so fresh. I love Citizen Kane now. The storytelling is fantastic, the cinematography is amazing. It's hard now to recreate what is was to watch that movie in its original context.

It was a movie that when it came out blew people's minds. The great cinematographer, Laszlo Kovacs who shot Easy Rider and Ghostbusters among others talked about watching Citizen Kane in 1945. He said it was like watching a miracle happen and that it changed his visual vocabulary overnight.

Casablanca is one of the all-time great romances and it's a romance that doesn't feel fake or soft. How many lines from that movie are quotable? I kinda feel sorry for folks that don't get it.


Bill Cosby talks about how when he first viewed the Marx Brothers he didn't think they were funny. Then he realized it's because he had been watching comedians for 40 years imitate their style.

[LJJ]

Damn wrong thread :P

[Dolphin]

But still two of the greatest movies ever. I've always loved Casablanca, but I was disappointed by my first viewing of Citizen Kane, I was expected to be overwhelmed because it was GREAT ART, and I reacted to that. For me that's a movie that gets better upon second viewing. Vertigo is one those for me too. One of the issues is that the culture has absorbed all the things that made Citizen Kane so startling and so fresh. I love Citizen Kane now. The storytelling is fantastic, the cinematography is amazing. It's hard now to recreate what is was to watch that movie in its original context.

It was a movie that when it came out blew people's minds. The great cinematographer, Laszlo Kovacs who shot Easy Rider and Ghostbusters among others talked about watching Citizen Kane in 1945. He said it was like watching a miracle happen and that it changed his visual vocabulary overnight.

Casablanca is one of the all-time great romances and it's a romance that doesn't feel fake or soft. How many lines from that movie are quotable? I kinda feel sorry for folks that don't get it.


Bill Cosby talks about how when he first viewed the Marx Brothers he didn't think they were funny. Then he realized it's because he had been watching comedians for 40 years imitate their style.

Without context, Citizen Kane would be a really good movie. Top 100 of all time still easily. With context, I have no problem with people saying it's the GOAT. Using context, I imagine it's one of a very short list of movies where people of that period (not the period when CK was made specifically, but any period) must have been thinking they were watching something from of the future.

Now I don't think the average person from that time appreciated it as many do today (it was somewhat of a failure when it was released), but people in the industry must have been in awe.

Anyone who has watched many movies of that era, then watched that for the first time will agree. There is no modern movie that has had the same effect. All the new technology today (seen in Avatar and such) has been expected for a while. It may be amazing, but not something beyond its time. Citizen Kane was just that, beyond its time.

[-p.tiddy-]

Are you ****ing retarded?

Yes :oldlol:
you both think that if The Hustler came out today as it is now that it would win an Oscar?

and you are calling ME retarded???





in all seriousness you both are completely delusional...you are stuck in "good old day syndrome" where you pretend everything from the past is better

I am sure you think every bit of music made pre 1960 would win Grammys???..."Let's Do the Twist" would dominate the club scene right???

FCK YOU lol

stop being stubborn and slap yourselves...it's just silly thinking

[Dolphin]

you both think that if The Hustler came out today as it is now that it would win an Oscar?

and you are calling ME retarded???





in all seriousness you both are completely delusional...you are stuck in "good old day syndrome" where you pretend everything from the past is better

I am sure you think every bit of music made pre 1960 would win Grammys???..."Let's Do the Twist" would dominate the club scene right???

FCK YOU lol

stop being stubborn and slap yourselves...it's just silly thinking

Not saying everything from the past is better, but I will say there are many movies from before the 70's that are imo clearly better than movies made today that are held in high esteem.

Some people are drawn to special effects and such more than others.

[-p.tiddy-]

Not saying everything from the past is better, but I will say there are many movies from before the 70's that are imo clearly better than movies made today that are held in high esteem.

Some people are drawn to special effects and such more than others.
obviously "some" movies from the old days are better...but the vast majority are not

much more has advanced than special effects...even acting has advanced


in The Hustler, Paul Newman and Jackie Gleason didn't do anything close to what Oscar winning actors are doing today...

the dialoge is stiff and unnatural...directing has advanced since...

I don't even know of a single aspect of that movie that hasn't been improved upon over time.

[-p.tiddy-]

most of the classics are "classics" because they were ground breaking "FOR THE TIME"

not because they would still be amazing films in modern cinema



I had to watch Citzen Kane a dozen times in art school...it would be a complete after thought if released today IMO...the only way you can really appreciate it is by taking into account WHEN it was made.

[Jackass18]

in all seriousness you both are completely delusional...you are stuck in "good old day syndrome" where you pretend everything from the past is better

You have "newer syndrome" where you pretend everything newer is better.

[-p.tiddy-]

You have "newer syndrome" where you pretend everything newer is better.
not "everything"...but most things

in general I 100% beleive art progresses for the better...for sure



if we saw a "shitty movie" from the year 2050 we would be blown away completely

just like a "shitty movie" today would be completely ground breaking in 1940

[Jailblazers7]

not "everything"...but most things

in general I 100% beleive art progresses for the better...for sure



if we saw a "shitty movie" from the year 2050 we would be blown away completely

just like a "shitty movie" today would be completely ground breaking in 1940

The techincal aspects of movies is unquestionably better today but the qualities that people consider the artistic side of movies can be argued either way. A lot of movies feel dated because the audience changes their tastes/preferences.

[DonDadda59]

you both think that if The Hustler came out today as it is now that it would win an Oscar?

and you are calling ME retarded???





in all seriousness you both are completely delusional...you are stuck in "good old day syndrome" where you pretend everything from the past is better

I am sure you think every bit of music made pre 1960 would win Grammys???..."Let's Do the Twist" would dominate the club scene right???

FCK YOU lol

stop being stubborn and slap yourselves...it's just silly thinking


You are so dense it's HILARIOUS :oldlol:

Stay gold primetime, stay gold :cheers:

[-p.tiddy-]

The techincal aspects of movies is unquestionably better today but the qualities that people consider the artistic side of movies can be argued either way. A lot of movies feel dated because the audience changes their tastes/preferences.
I don't think so...like I said earlier a movie like Pulp Fiction couldn't even exist in the "Good Old Days"...too taboo

there is so much more influence and artistic freedom today than then...artists are much more free


you could say that in the human DNA that artist gene is the same in every time period...sure...but the influence is NOT the same

today's artists have the benifit of being influenced by every "classic" ever made...thus making them more well rounded artists

[-p.tiddy-]

You are so dense it's HILARIOUS :oldlol:

Stay gold primetime, stay gold :cheers:
so yes you think The Hustler would win an Oscar today?

:facepalm


dude, you're a joke

[DonDadda59]

so yes you think The Hustler would win an Oscar today?

:facepalm


dude, you're a joke

Nothing funnier than stupid people who have no clue they're stupid. But I'll play along. Please show me where I said the Hustler would win an Oscar. I'll wait.

And on that topic- there's no way a black and white movie would win an Oscar in this day and age of advanced ground breaking movies, right? Heaven forbid if it's a silent flick :eek:

[FatComputerNerd]

Nothing funnier than stupid people who have no clue they're stupid. But I'll play along. Please show me where I said the Hustler would win an Oscar. I'll wait.

And on that topic- there's no way a black and white movie would win an Oscar in this day and age of advanced ground breaking movies, right? Heaven forbid if it's a silent flick :eek:

I still haven't seen The Artist. Is it really that good?

[DonDadda59]

I still haven't seen The Artist. Is it really that good?

No clue, haven't seen it yet either. On my to-see list along with Gone with the Wind, I avoided that one forever but people here are doing a great job selling it :D

[KevinNYC]

Now I don't think the average person from that time appreciated it as many do today (it was somewhat of a failure when it was released), but people in the industry must have been in awe.
We'll never know what Citizen Kane's box office would have been if it had been released and strongly promoted by its studio like any other movie.
A huge part of the failure of Citizen Kane was that the movie was a direct attack on one of the most powerful people in America at the time, William Randolph Hearst. (It was also a viciously personal attack. "Rosebud" was Citizen Kane's dying word and in real life, rosebud was reportedly Hearst's nickname for his mistress's clitoris.) However Hearst didn't have to take this attack lying down. Hearst had the means to strike back and strike back hard (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/william-randolph-hearst-stops-citizen-kane-ads). Hearst dictated that no Hearst newspaper would carry advertising FOR ANY RKO movies if they released Citizen Kane. After a couple of weeks he changed this to just banning ads for Citizen Kane. In fact, he banned ANY mention of the Citizen Kane in his papers.


After catching a preview screening of the unfinished Citizen Kane on January 3, 1941, the influential gossip columnist Hedda Hopper wasted no time in passing along the news to Hearst and his associates. Her rival and Hearst’s chief movie columnist, Louella Parsons, was incensed about the film and its portrait of Charles Foster Kane, the Hearst-like character embodied in typically grandiose style by Welles himself. Even more loathsome to Hearst and his allies was the portrayal of Kane’s second wife, a young alcoholic singer with strong parallels to Hearst’s mistress, the showgirl-turned-actress Marion Davies. Hearst was said to have reacted to this aspect of the film more strongly than any other, and Welles himself later called the Davies-based character a “dirty trick” that he expected would provoke the mogul’s anger.

Only a few days after the screening, Hearst sent the word out to all his publications not to run advertisements for the film. Far from stopping there, he also threatened to make war against the Hollywood studio system in general, publicly condemning the number of “immigrants” and “refugees” working in the film industry instead of Americans, a none-too-subtle reference to the many Jewish members of the Hollywood establishment. Hearst’s newspapers also went after Welles, accusing him of Communist sympathies and questioning his patriotism.

Hollywood’s heavyweights, who were already resentful of Welles for his youth and his open contempt for Hollywood, soon rallied around Hearst. Louis B. Mayer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer even offered to pay RKO $842,000 in cash if the studio’s president, George Schaefer, would destroy the negative and all prints of Citizen Kane. Schaefer refused and in retaliation threatened to sue the Fox, Paramount and Loews theater chains for conspiracy after they refused to distribute the film. After Time and other publications protested, the theater chains relented slightly and permitted a few showings; in the end, the film barely broke even.

Nominated for nine Oscars, Citizen Kane won only one (a shared Best Screenplay award for Mankiewicz and Welles) and Welles and the film were actually booed at the 1942 Academy Awards ceremony. Schaefer was later pushed out at RKO, along with Welles, and the film was returned to the RKO archives. It would be 25 more years before Citizen Kane received its rightful share of attention, but it has since been heralded as one of the best movies of all time.


PBS did a good documentary on the Battle over Citizen Kane (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kane2/kane2ts.html)


FRANK MANKIEWICZ: Hearst threatened the industry in every way he could think of. He recalled scandals, drunkenness, miscegenation, crimes of various kinds that he had, at the request of the studios, suppressed in his newspapers and which remained, I assume, in type somewhere. He reminded them that the--that the country that read his newspapers might not look kindly on the high percentage of Jews in the industry.

NARRATOR: Hearst warned, through The Hollywood Reporter, that their papers would crusade against all the major studios for ''giving employment to refugees and immigrants instead of handing those jobs to Americans.''

FRANK MANKIEWICZ: I think what he was saying was, ''You Hollywood people who crave respectability do not want the country to think about and talk about and dwell upon the fact that you're all Jews, and that many of your key executives and directors and writers are now refugees from Germany.'' And he was right, they didn't want that, so they pulled the movie.

NARRATOR: Louis B. Mayer assembled his fellow studio chiefs and, in their name, he offered eight hundred thousand dollars to buy the negative for the express purpose of burning it. RKO begged for a meeting with Hearst, and nervously postponed the premiere. Meanwhile, the real owners of the studio--the money men who held the stock--gathered in New York.

ROBERT WISE: I got a call from my boss one Monday morning, saying, ''Listen, there's a great urgency that you go to New York with this print of Kane because they need it back in New York very, very urgently. You must get on a plane and go.'' And I was told I was to take the print of the picture to the Music Hall, where they had a projection theater there. Now, these were the chairman of the boards, the head men of all the major studios, and their lawyers. The purpose of it was to see, after looking at the picture, whether the companies would say to RKO, ''In the interest of our film industry, put this film on the shelf, don't release it.'' That was the first time I realized the film was really in danger.......

NARRATOR: Within a month, the Hearst campaign had shifted. Now the target wasn't just the film. Hearst's American Weekly started researching an expos--on Welles' private life--would he be available to talk about Delores Del Rio? Wasn't she married when he took up with her? A whisper campaign questioned Welles' willingness to serve his country. Reporters started showing up at his draft board.
......

FRANK MANKIEWICZ: And then they turned on the pressure. They--they told them, ''If you run this movie in your theaters, we will not take your advertising for any other movies,'' the Hearst papers. Well, that's--that's a death knell. You don't--you just don't--you don't mess with that.

PETER BOGDANOVICH: They couldn't get theaters. Some of them would book it and then not play it.

DOROTHY COMINGORE: And RKO finally--they owned the Palace Theater, but they turned it into a movie house in order to be able to show it in New York.

VERN WHALEY: No Hearst newspaper ever published a review. No Hearst newspaper ever published an ad. The orders came from San Simeon that there was to be no advertising accepted for that movie.

MASTER OF CEREMONIES, New York Film Critics Awards: On behalf of all our film critics, we're very happy to present you these awards for Orson Welles' production of Citizen Kane as the best picture of 1941--

WILLIAM ALLAND: When the film came out, as you know, it won every award in New York, it did everything, and immediately there was a blackout. They really wanted to destroy it and destroy him.

[-p.tiddy-]

Nothing funnier than stupid people who have no clue they're stupid. But I'll play along. Please show me where I said the Hustler would win an Oscar. I'll wait.

And on that topic- there's no way a black and white movie would win an Oscar in this day and age of advanced ground breaking movies, right? Heaven forbid if it's a silent flick :eek:
so you AGREE with me that The Hustler wouldn't be a modern day Oscar winner...but you called me retarded when I said that???

What exactly do you disagree with then?

and when did I say anything about black and white?...is that how your simple mind thinks?...black and white = old?

The Artist is subtitled and MILES beyond anything made in the 20s

[DonDadda59]

so you AGREE with me that The Hustler wouldn't be a modern day Oscar winner...but you called me retarded when I said that???

What exactly do you disagree with then?

and when did I say anything about black and white?...is that how your simple mind thinks?...black and white = old?

The Artist is subtitled and MILES beyond anything made in the 20s

Goodness you are dense, you still have no clue why John asked you if you were retarded, do you? But then again, I have to remind myself that I'm talking to the guy who thinks Jesus' legal last name is Christ :oldlol:

Bottom line- a great film is a great film regardless of when it was released, whether it's black and white, silent, animated, 3-D, GCI, whatever. I personally think that the 70s were the Golden Age of film and that the vast majority of major releases today are just remakes of 80s TV shows (and I guess they're moving on to board games now :oldlol: ) and adaptations of books written for teenage girls. A lot of the technical aspects of film have improved (ie, cameras, cgi, etc) but just because you sprinkle dog shit with cinnamon powder and rose petals doesn't mean it's no longer dog shit.

Just take a look at what's in theaters now- a film like Wrath of the Titans or a recent release like Sucker Punch have all the benefits of modern film technology... but they are absolute train wrecks and downright terrible. Better technology =/= better film.

[-p.tiddy-]

Jon quoted and bolded me saying it wouldn't be an Oscar today...he was definitely reffering to that.


it's black and white, silent, animated, 3-D, GCI, whatever.

is this the only thing that has adavnced in cinema ?...:oldlol:

the only things that have progressed are special effects related?...where the fck did you go to school?...like sound and "color" is the only difference? :facepalm

come on, you starred as a fckin prop in Nike commercial, so you know your shit...I'm sure your acting lessons were based around Citizen Kane cause that is the best...acting was the best back then all the greats know that.





you're a fckin joke...go find a Christian to bash

[bagelred]

What's Humphrey Bogart been up to? You don't hear much about him lately..........

[DonDadda59]

Jon quoted and bolded me saying it wouldn't be an Oscar today...he was definitely reffering to that.

So he was right :oldlol:




is this the only thing that has adavnced in cinema ?...:oldlol:

the only things that have progressed are special effects related?...where the fck did you go to school?...like sound and "color" is the only difference? :facepalm

come on, you starred as a fckin prop in Nike commercial, so you know your shit...I'm sure your acting lessons were based around Citizen Kane cause that is the best...acting was the best back then all the greats know that.

Actually, just last week I starred as a detective on a new CBS pilot airing this fall (if it gets picked up by the network, fingers crossed :D ). My acting lessons were based on Sanford Meisner's teachings, which were a derivative of Stanislavski's system. In a nutshell- there is nothing you can tell me about film, either in front of or behind a camera, that I don't know INFINITELY more about than you do. So stick to what you know and try not to come off so 'special', deal champ?



you're a fckin joke...go find a Christian to bash

I'm your huckleberry :pimp:

[-p.tiddy-]

Jon was reffering to Hustler being an Oscar winner today you fcking retard :facepalm


and the rest of your post was proping yourself...so I don't know what you want me to say to that, but if you don't think acting has advanced since Citizen Kane then your teacher sucks.

and you definitley don't know more than me about art in general...which is what I know but I won't prop myself like you just did.

[LJJ]

Are you ****ing retarded?


This response to a p.tiddy post has to be the most frequently contemplated rhetorical question in ISH History.

[-p.tiddy-]

my post was 100% right...you just have a grudge

[-p.tiddy-]

it's all a grudge, even Don D agrees with me, he just has a past grudge over Jesus or something...he doesn't even know what he is argueing right now


Jon is probably the only poster here that truely believes The Huster would be an Oscar winner today...but posters will side with him even though they are on my side of the arguement

[DonDadda59]

Jon was reffering to Hustler being an Oscar winner today you fcking retard :facepalm

He was referring to you being a retard, and you still have no clue why and I find that HILARIOUS :oldlol:



and the rest of your post was proping yourself...so I don't know what you want me to say to that, but if you don't think acting has advanced since Citizen Kane then your teacher sucks.

Yeah, I was just setting the record straight. And my teacher has produced the likes of the Turturros (John and Aida), David Duchovony, Anne Hathaway, and many others. So I think he might know just a tad more than you about the subject.


and you definitley don't know more than me about art in general...which is what I know but I won't prop myself like you just did.

If believing that helps you sleep better tonight, rock on :cheers: :rockon:

[-p.tiddy-]

okay DOn, answer these two questions honestly PLEASE

1 - do you think acting has advanced since Citizen Kane???

2 - what are you arguing with me about? do you even know?...we both agree that The Hustler wouldn't win an Oscar today.

[-p.tiddy-]

victory in what?

he isn't even arguing anything :oldlol:

[-p.tiddy-]

He indoubtably proved you are a retard and he knew more about art than you.
um, no he certainly didn't..he didn't say anything about art at all other than his teacher is a bad ass

I've been making a living as an artist for over a decade...but I'm not going to get into a "who's dick is bigger" contest with him over that...

[-p.tiddy-]

I honestly don't think he knows what he is arguing at all...

he basicilly agrees with everything I said but just wanted to call me retarded lol...and then prop his show that might make TV

[DonDadda59]

okay DOn, answer these two questions honestly PLEASE

1 - do you think acting has advanced since Citizen Kane???

2 - what are you arguing with me about? do you even know?...we both agree that The Hustler wouldn't win an Oscar today.

1) Depends on what you consider as 'advanced'. It's stupid to make blanket statements about something so organic and varied. There isn't just one school of thought- there's Meisner, method, classical theater, etc and so on. I think that there was a shift beginning with Brando, Dean, Clift, etc when they brought Strasberg's method into film. Before then it was based mostly on classical theatrical principles. Some people prefer that over the more naturalistic method and meisner, I'm not one of them. But to say 'acting advanced' across the board is ridiculous because there isn't one homogeneous approach. Stanislavski was preaching naturalism/realism in the early 1920s and that's where pretty much all modern techniques derive from.

2) You're still stuck on the Hustler and that is priceless :lol . And for the record, I don't see why it couldn't win an award for cinematography like it did in '62. It's not like it won Best Picture when it came out. Again, the Artist just won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2012 and it was a silent Black and White film. Great is great, it's not confined to certain time periods.

[-p.tiddy-]

dude, you didn't even answer #2

what do you disagree with me on if not the The Hustler comment?


"in general" acting has advanced...I don't need private lessons from DeNiro to know acting has come a long way since Citizen Kane...and yes it was just a little generalized statement not meant to go into insane depth on every single facet of acting, you know it has advanced (in general) too...at this point you just want to argue.

[-p.tiddy-]

cause his is clearly larger.
:wtf:

maybe you should suck on it

[-p.tiddy-]

2) You're still stuck on the Hustler and that is priceless :lol . And for the record, I don't see why it couldn't win an award for cinematography like it did in '62. It's not like it won Best Picture when it came out. Again, the Artist just won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2012 and it was a silent Black and White film. Great is great, it's not confined to certain time periods.
This only proves MY point

MUCH MCUH more has advanced other than "color" and "sound"

like ACTING and SCRIPT WRITING!!!! :hammerhead:


that is all you see as the advancement...effects and such

[-p.tiddy-]

maybe I already have.
did it taste like the dick of a skilled actor?

be honest

[DonDadda59]

dude, you didn't even answer #2

what do you disagree with me on if not the The Hustler comment?

I honestly don't know why you are so stuck on the Hustler, that is random as f*ck and really quite perplexing. The movie didn't even win Best Picture when it came out so you arguing (with yourself :oldlol: ) whether or not it would win today makes no sense whatsoever.

And I'm arguing you making stupid blanket statements like 'acting has advanced' and 'movies are better now than before'.

But tell me more about the Hustler....


"in general" acting has advanced...I don't need private lessons from DeNiro to know acting has come a long way since Citizen Kane...and yes it was just a little generalized statement not meant to go into insane depth on every single facet of acting, you know it has advanced (in general) too...at this point you just want to argue.

You don't even know the basics of the History of acting as an art form or the difference between the names and schools of thought I mentioned, you're just talking out of your ass. Like I said before, stick to what you know, that way people will stop questioning whether or not you are mentally handicapped.

Just my two cents, have a great day champ :cheers:

[-p.tiddy-]

I honestly don't know why you are so stuck on the Hustler, that is random as f*ck and really quite perplexing. The movie didn't even win Best Picture when it came out so you arguing (with yourself :oldlol: ) whether or not it would win today makes no sense whatsoever.

And I'm arguing you making stupid blanket statements like 'acting has advanced' and 'movies are better now than before'.

But tell me more about the Hustler....



You don't even know the basics of the History of acting as an art form or the difference between the names and schools of thought I mentioned, you're just talking out of your ass. Like I said before, stick to what you know, that way people will stop questioning whether or not you are mentally handicapped.

Just my two cents, have a great day champ :cheers:

I'm not stuck on The Hustler...I haven't been for many posts now, I have been asking you what your issue is because it ISN'T The Hustler.

I did however come into this thread talking about the Hustler when this started...


and there is nothing stupid about saying "acting has advanced"...you just felt threatened or something

and I went to film school, but I don't need a fckin lessons from DeNiro to see it has progressed since the silent film days...like I said


good luck with your show...I'm sure you are actually better than Charlie Chaplin

[-p.tiddy-]

The movie didn't even win Best Picture when it came out so you arguing (with yourself ) whether or not it would win today makes no sense whatsoever.


OOOHHH

I wasn't suggesting that it had ever won

I was just saying it was my favorite "old time movie" but I wasn't going to pretend it would an Oscar today"

you see?

[DonDadda59]

I'm not stuck on The Hustler...I haven't been for many posts now, I have been asking you what your issue is because it ISN'T The Hustler.

I did however come into this thread talking about the Hustler when this started...


and there is nothing stupid about saying "acting has advanced"...you just felt threatened or something

and I went to film school, but I don't need a fckin lessons from DeNiro to see it has progressed since the silent film days...like I said


good luck with your show...I'm sure you are actually better than Charlie Chaplin

f*ck that hack Chaplin, my target is 2012 Oscar winner Jean Dujardin... imagine, winning an Oscar in this day and age as a silent actor... not in the age of 'advanced acting' :eek:

Stop embarrassing yourself. I'm out. But keep doing what you do, show the world what people with mental handicaps can accomplish. If you believe, you can achieve. :cheers:

[-p.tiddy-]

f*ck that hack Chaplin, my target is 2012 Oscar winner Jean Dujardin... imagine, winning an Oscar in this day and age as a silent actor... not in the age of 'advanced acting' :eek:

Stop embarrassing yourself. I'm out. But keep doing what you do, show the world what people with mental handicaps can accomplish. If you believe, you can achieve. :cheers:
I ever said ANYTHING about black and white or silent films

YOU made this about "special effects" in your head

I am saying OTHER things have advanced...(which is why The Artist won, the OTHER things)

[Jackass18]

I don't think so...like I said earlier a movie like Pulp Fiction couldn't even exist in the "Good Old Days"...too taboo

there is so much more influence and artistic freedom today than then...artists are much more free

you could say that in the human DNA that artist gene is the same in every time period...sure...but the influence is NOT the same

today's artists have the benifit of being influenced by every "classic" ever made...thus making them more well rounded artists

Ummm, no. If something like this were true, then all remakes would surpass the originals, but more often than not, they're worse. Just because someone is around now doesn't mean they're more well rounded than someone from long ago. Someone can watch countless movies and direct many movies, but still never make anything anywhere close to as good as Orson Welles' first movie 71 years ago. What benefit do they get knowing that they can't match the talent of the past?


Jon is probably the only poster here that truely believes The Huster would be an Oscar winner today...but posters will side with him even though they are on my side of the arguement

The Oscars have ****ed up on numerous occasions. I couldn't say what would and wouldn't win. What would you pick to win: The Hustler or Crash?

Wait a minute, did this asshole just disparage Chaplin's acting?

[-p.tiddy-]

If something like this were true, then all remakes would surpass the originals

if the remakes came out BEFORE the original then they would in almost every case

Friday the 13th 1980 (constidered a "classic" horror film) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjiqwTv9yeI)

Friday the 13th 2009 (considered one of the worst remakes ever made, pure shit, yet it is better than the original in every single facet, from acting, to directing, to cinematography, to dialoge, to etc) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MiJzZ7FQX0)




the only reason people consider the original to be better is because of WHEN it came out...not because it is better today

I could do this same thing with just almost every remake...but there may be a couple exceptions out there

[-p.tiddy-]

What would you pick to win: The Hustler or Crash?

:lol

Crash is more entertaining I think when it comes down to it


Wait a minute, did this asshole just disparage Chaplin's acting

he was amazing...FOR THE TIME

[Jackass18]

I could do this same thing with just almost every remake...but there may be a couple exceptions out there

Try. I don't consider Friday the 13th a classic horror movie. I haven't seen the remake so I can't say which is better.


he was amazing...FOR THE TIME

You're an idiot...ALL THE TIME

Oh well, go back to jacking it to 'newer is always better'.

[-p.tiddy-]

I never said "always" :rolleyes: ...but yeah I'll stick with newer being better in general, because it is true

[-p.tiddy-]

Try.

how about you try to find me a remake that you think would do worse than the original if they came out at the same time.

:confusedshrug:

I'm sure there are a couple out there...

[Jackass18]

I never said "always" :rolleyes: ...but yeah I'll stick with newer being better in general, because it is true

I was quoting Barney (no, not the dinosaur) because it's close enough to fit. Though, it's just "New is always better". Anyways, I'll pose a question from that episode: "So, those new Star Wars movies... Those are better than the old ones?"

[Jackass18]

how about you try to find me a remake that you think would do worse than the original if they came out at the same time.

:confusedshrug:

I'm sure there are a couple out there...

Do worse? How a movie does at the box office isn't indicative of how good/bad it is. What would be considered better? The first one that comes to mind is Psycho.

[FatComputerNerd]

how about you try to find me a remake that you think would do worse than the original if they came out at the same time.

:confusedshrug:

I'm sure there are a couple out there...

conan

[-p.tiddy-]

I was quoting Barney (no, not the dinosaur) because it's close enough to fit. Though, it's just "New is always better". Anyways, I'll pose a question from that episode: "So, those new Star Wars movies... Those are better than the old ones?"
I am sure if the new ones came out in 1980 they would be viewed as masterpieces...

children that are oblivious to time like the new more, that says something IMO...

Star Wars for sure benifited huge based on WHEN it came out...



that one is close though I think...Haden Christianson was so awful...but it isn't like Mark Hamill was a brilliant actor either.

[-p.tiddy-]

Do worse? How a movie does at the box office isn't indicative of how good/bad it is. What would be considered better? The first one that comes to mind is Psycho.
if the remake of Psycho came out in 1960 you don't think it would have a bigger effect on people???

seriously?...be honest

[-p.tiddy-]

conan
have not seen...but I love the Original

prolly better than Conan the Destroyer though...that was a bit cheezy

[Jackass18]

if the remake of Psycho came out in 1960 you don't think it would have a bigger effect on people???

seriously?...be honest

What kind of question is that? The remake was a complete rip-off of the original. What about The Wicker Man remake? It doesn't matter when it would have been made, it would have been considered horrendously awful. A lot of horror remakes are just lazy, uninspired copies of the original that were done worse.

[-p.tiddy-]

What kind of question is that? The remake was a complete rip-off of the original. What about The Wicker Man remake? It doesn't matter when it would have been made, it would have been considered horrendously awful. A lot of horror remakes are just lazy, uninspired copies of the original that were done worse.
rip off?...it's a REMAKE lol

yeah it coming out AFTER the original is the only reason it is seen as bad...if the remake of Psycho came out in 1960 it might have scared people into comas...

yes I agree most remakes are awful and uninspired...but most still would have had every bit of success the originals had if they came out first though...even more...the film medium as a whole DID advance...it is just the time in which it came out that determines if it is "crap" or not.

[Whoah10115]

It's been a bad stretch for film since maybe 2006. Of course there are great ones that come out, but I'm more and more amazed by how low the standard has become. I think the idea of indie as a genre has really killed the heart of filmmaking.



Years ago I had a girl I was talking to tell me that Stand By Me is her favorite film of all-time...of course, that wasn't counting indie films.



It didn't just sound pretentious; it sounded stupid. Because I let her know that Stand By Me was an independent film. She argued...its budget was even low enough to qualify for the Indie Spirit Awards...I showed her the link, she argued.




Point is, indie has really messed a lot of it up. And all the Charlize Theron's of the world, deciding to make Monster, suddenly want to get on a pedestal and rip everything else...like Charlize Theron knows what the hell she's talking about. It's just sad.

[Whoah10115]

BTW, Casablanca is a great film. I need to watch it again. It's been a long time since I've watched anything.



Funny, I've never seen Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolfe...I have it here tho. Maybe tonight I'll watch it. That's my goal.

[Jackass18]

rip off?...it's a REMAKE lol

A complete rip-off as in it copied it nearly frame-by-frame.


yeah it coming out AFTER the original is the only reason it is seen as bad...

Umm, no.


yes I agree most remakes are awful and uninspired...but most still would have had every bit of success the originals had if they came out first though...even more...the film medium as a whole DID advance...it is just the time in which it came out that determines if it is "crap" or not.

OK, I see there's no point in arguing with someone as stubborn and ignorant as you.

Turn Skip Clueless mode off.

[-p.tiddy-]

Lol...good god

[RidonKs]

I never said "always" :rolleyes: ...but yeah I'll stick with newer being better in general, because it is true
so in your opinion, the majority of critics and even popular opinion (like imdb ratings) are purely a result of nostalgia?

how does this 'progress' really work? like on a scale of five years, is it noticeable? how about ten? you're naming Pulp Fiction as pare of the current era, it was over twenty years ago. were the 80s necessarily better than the 70s? are the first two years of this decade an improvement over the late 90s when some of my absolutely favourite movies ever came out?

i think there were a few crucial movements in cinema that have contributed to our current understanding of what makes for quality film. the civil rights movement and general countercultural revolution of the 60s had nothing to do with movies explicitly, but they did indirectly contribute to the qualities you seem to believe inherently makes filmmaking today better than yesteryear. artistic freedom, fewer taboos, more room for serious meditation on the most important topics of the time, etc. but those political events affected every aspect of life, arguably in most cases resulting in the same general effects i described above. in the history of movies, you could say they catipulted some of the very best we've ever seen like scorsese and, iunno, dennis hopper and other guys. regardless of the names, there are moments throughout the history where barriers are definitely broken.

you do what you can in the context you're given. the art of an era reflects the social and political culture. there is no artistic progress, just change, some good, some bad, all interacting with the social political and economic circumstances of the time. if in 20 years, a fascist takes over america and suddenly, y'all aren't so free anymore but the remnants of your dominance of world entertainment remain and shit starts to suck because everybody's employed and/or beaten by the state... WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROGRESS???

if you want to enjoy movies of an earlier era, you've got to get your head in the time an just accept what was considered great at the time. don just lectured you on exactly why you feel jimmy stewart was a bum. it's because there have been several acting models generally accepted by consensus over the last century. and even more, the 'new' accepted method wasn't even a modern innovation, it's mostly based on some dude from 1917! yeah, we're REALLY getting better at this.

you're coming at this all wrong and your biases shine through. sorry brah.

[Dolphin]

Please don't tell me he said James Stewart is a bum....Please. lol

[RidonKs]

naa, i made that up... and jimmy was still going strong into the so he might be on prime's good side


i edited the above btw pt, some unfinished thoughts

[RidonKs]

don's right in the end though, it's pretty nuts to casually put one era of anything as prevalent and popular and varied as movies over another. there's too much good everywhere you look to bother, right alongside the bad like always.

[KevinNYC]

you're naming Pulp Fiction as pare of the current era, it was over twenty years ago.

It was 1994, so almost 20 years. Oddly enough Pulp Fiction's fractured storyline is almost directly influenced by the fractured narrative in Citizen Kane.

So yeah, Citizen Kane awesome film. Still being studied by great moviemakers today.

[RidonKs]

Oddly enough Pulp Fiction's fractured storyline is almost directly influenced by the fractured narrative in Citizen Kane.
in a way. kane is fractured across time with the same characters, in pulp the stories are sort of ambiguously simultaneous at some points and clearly linear at others. i tend to love that style as long as the rest of the movie's on point of course, having big chunks devoted to a few characters characters instead of tv-like cutting from one character to the next every scene.

[-p.tiddy-]

so in your opinion, the majority of critics and even popular opinion (like imdb ratings) are purely a result of nostalgia?

how does this 'progress' really work? like on a scale of five years, is it noticeable? how about ten? you're naming Pulp Fiction as pare of the current era, it was over twenty years ago. were the 80s necessarily better than the 70s? are the first two years of this decade an improvement over the late 90s when some of my absolutely favourite movies ever came out?
not nostalgia maybe, but more like the first to come foward with an idea or genre gets the "all time great award"

obviously most critics take time period into account how could they not?

the amount that art progress over time depends of what we are talking about...it isn't an exact science obviously...like maybe pot making has changed little from when the indians were making pots, but I'm sure some advancement has come forward since.

in film my own personal opinion is that 5 years isn't really anything...I think pretty major differences can be seen in 20 years though in most facets of film...yeah SFX is most noticable and perhaps acting is the less noticable

50 year seperation is extremely obvious though, and if you deny film has progressed over 50 years then you are just in denial I think.


i think there were a few crucial movements in cinema that have contributed to our current understanding of what makes for quality film. the civil rights movement and general countercultural revolution of the 60s had nothing to do with movies explicitly, but they did indirectly contribute to the qualities you seem to believe inherently makes filmmaking today better than yesteryear. artistic freedom, fewer taboos, more room for serious meditation on the most important topics of the time, etc. but those political events affected every aspect of life, arguably in most cases resulting in the same general effects i described above. in the history of movies, you could say they catipulted some of the very best we've ever seen like scorsese and, iunno, dennis hopper and other guys. regardless of the names, there are moments throughout the history where barriers are definitely broken.

you do what you can in the context you're given. the art of an era reflects the social and political culture. there is no artistic progress, just change, some good, some bad, all interacting with the social political and economic circumstances of the time. if in 20 years, a fascist takes over america and suddenly, y'all aren't so free anymore but the remnants of your dominance of world entertainment remain and shit starts to suck because everybody's employed and/or beaten by the state... WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROGRESS???
.
there IS artict progress though...influence IS REAL

modern art was influenced by classic art...it DOES progressd

if you want to enjoy movies of an earlier era, you've got to get your head in the time an just accept what was considered great at the time. don just lectured you on exactly why you feel jimmy stewart was a bum. it's because there have been several acting models generally accepted by consensus over the last century. and even more, the 'new' accepted method wasn't even a modern innovation, it's mostly based on some dude from 1917! yeah, we're REALLY getting better at this.

you're coming at this all wrong and your biases shine through. sorry brah.
EXACTLY!!!

I don't know what you are talking about with the Jimmy Stewart thing though...but yeah, in order to appreciate the old movies you have to take the time period into context

[-p.tiddy-]

don's right in the end though, it's pretty nuts to casually put one era of anything as prevalent and popular and varied as movies over another. there's too much good everywhere you look to bother, right alongside the bad like always.
Don didn't say much in here really...other than pointing out he might be in a new show...and not knowing what he was arguing about...I don't think he had much of a point to make, he just wanted to call me a retard lol

but there is good everywhere, yes

[johndeeregreen]

you both think that if The Hustler came out today as it is now that it would win an Oscar?

and you are calling ME retarded???
Who knows how the Academy picks shit, but if the Hustler came out today there is no doubt that at the very least it would be nominated for Best Picture and Best Actor. ESPECIALLY given that f*cking 10 films get nominated now.

Whats next, Color of Money is better than the Hustler too...



stop being stubborn and slap yourselves...it's just silly thinking
I would need a f*cking axe to cut through this irony. You are a complete joke. ESPECIALLY since the Hustler stands up pretty well today, its a far cry from the Casablanca-esque type of film we both know you do not appreciate.

[RidonKs]

in film my own personal opinion is that 5 years isn't really anything...I think pretty major differences can be seen in 20 years though in most facets of film...yeah SFX is most noticable and perhaps acting is the less noticable

so if there's a difference, and that difference is clearly noticeable after twenty years, and that difference is demonstrably an improvement, which aspects of film exactly tell that tale? there were a LOT of great directors doing their thing in the early 8s.



50 year seperation is extremely obvious though, and if you deny film has progressed over 50 years then you are just in denial I think.
different, not better. we're not about to resolve that conflict any time soon, so there's no real point continuing. i think you're being shortsighted here, as do most others... but chances are to some degree, we're all more stubborn than we'd like to think in holding irrelevant biases that affect our opinions.

[-p.tiddy-]

Who knows how the Academy picks shit, but if the Hustler came out today there is no doubt that at the very least it would be nominated for Best Picture and Best Actor. ESPECIALLY given that f*cking 10 films get nominated now.

Whats next, Color of Money is better than the Hustler too...



I would need a f*cking axe to cut through this irony. You are a complete joke. ESPECIALLY since the Hustler stands up pretty well today, its a far cry from the Casablanca-esque type of film we both know you do not appreciate.
I KNEW IT!!!!

Don assumed that you called me retarded because you thought that I thought the Hustler had already won an Oscar

:lol

[johndeeregreen]

The Hustler ABSOLUTELY is a better film than a whole lot of Academy Award nominated garbage of the last 10 years. Not even up for discussion. PT do you think that "Oscar" means the same thing as "Best Picture"? Wouldn't surprise me.

[-p.tiddy-]

so if there's a difference, and that difference is clearly noticeable after twenty years, and that difference is demonstrably an improvement, which aspects of film exactly tell that tale? there were a LOT of great directors doing their thing in the early 8s.
I bet you could find improvements of some degree in every single facet...some maybe much less noticable, and obviousy the technical areas more noticable

and we are talking in general of course...like comparing the best movies of gen A to gen B...obvioulsy the best movie made in the 60s (or ay decade) would still be better than crap movies made today.

[johndeeregreen]

I KNEW IT!!!!

Don assumed that you called me retarded because you thought that I thought the Hustler had already won an Oscar

:lol
Negative, I called you retarded because the Hustler is one of not a whole lot of films from that time period that has held up extremely well. There are probably hundreds of Oscar winners from the 30s-50s that are almost too dated to enjoy but the Hustler isn't one of them. What an abhorrent example. No doubt in my mind it would win some sort of Oscar in modern times.

[-p.tiddy-]

The Hustler ABSOLUTELY is a better film than a whole lot of Academy Award nominated garbage of the last 10 years. Not even up for discussion. PT do you think that "Oscar" means the same thing as "Best Picture"? Wouldn't surprise me.
I just used Oscar to make a point...

If The Hustler came out today no one would look at it

I love the movie, but it was just great FOR THE TIME IT WAS MADE

[johndeeregreen]

I just used Oscar to make a point...

If The Hustler came out today no one would look at it

I love the movie, but it was just great FOR THE TIME IT WAS MADE
No, I still think you're wrong. You can say that about films like Casablanca perhaps, even though honestly they aren't comparable. If Casablanca came out today it would probably win an Oscar because it was such a great homage to movies of the 40s and 50s. So how can you really put it in this time period?

A film like the Hustler, though, it isn't aged outside of the B&W film. It's still a great film without the cheesy cringeworthy moments. You just picked a horrific example. Hustler even today would be viewed as a great film, no doubt.

[-p.tiddy-]

Negative, I called you retarded because the Hustler is one of not a whole lot of films from that time period that has held up extremely well. There are probably hundreds of Oscar winners from the 30s-50s that are almost too dated to enjoy but the Hustler isn't one of them. What an abhorrent example. No doubt in my mind it would win some sort of Oscar in modern times.
okay I knew it...Don was WRONG :banana:



but for WHAT???

like Jackie Gleason is going to take home a Best Supporting Actor for Minnisota Fats???...hell no

it would have NO CHANCE today...sorry

[-p.tiddy-]

No, I still think you're wrong. You can say that about films like Casablanca perhaps, even though honestly they aren't comparable. If Casablanca came out today it would probably win an Oscar because it was such a great homage to movies of the 40s and 50s. So how can you really put it in this time period?

A film like the Hustler, though, it isn't aged outside of the B&W film. It's still a great film without the cheesy cringeworthy moments. You just picked a horrific example. Hustler even today would be viewed as a great film, no doubt.
the dialoge is EXTEMELY dated dude...omg

and I love The Hustler too...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJxEQc2s-M&feature=related

listen to them talk dude...I mean come on

[johndeeregreen]

the dialoge is EXTEMELY dated dude...omg

and I love The Hustler too...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJxEQc2s-M&feature=related

listen to them talk dude...I mean come on
How is that clip dated in any way? "Gee, you shoot straight pool, mister?" INTENDED TO BE CHEESY. HE'S TRYING TO LURE FATS.:facepalm After that, he's talking to him condescendingly. "Shoots the eyes off them balls."

Seriously. Before you critique films you need to show a basic ability to understand, you know, what's ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE SCENE.

My initial observation was correct, it's not that you're biased against old films, it's just that well... you're just completely ****ing clueless.

[-p.tiddy-]

How is that clip dated in any way? "Gee, you shoot straight pool, mister?" INTENDED TO BE CHEESY. HE'S TRYING TO LURE FATS.:facepalm After that, he's talking to him condescendingly. "Shoots the eyes off them balls."

Seriously. Before you critique films you need to show a basic ability to understand, you know, what's ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THE SCENE.

My initial observation was correct, it's not that you're biased against old films, it's just that well... you're just completely ****ing clueless.
It's def you that is clueless here. Yourre the only one here that thinks that flick would still get Oscar treatment today. Even Don assumed you meant something else.

Everything in that flick is dated Jon...its a whole different time period, it wouldnt hold up today.


You've always come across as someone that only likes older things though...like you wish you lived in the 50s or something.

Cars were way better back then too right?...they don't make em like they used to...

[-p.tiddy-]

I've seen that movie like 50 times BTW...I know exactly what's going on in every scene. I grew up with a pool table and Hung in pool halls, that's why I have a thing for thst movie.

[johndeeregreen]

It's def you that is clueless here. Yourre the only one here that thinks that flick would still get Oscar treatment today. Even Don assumed you meant something else.

Everything in that flick is dated Jon...its a whole different time period, it wouldnt hold up today.

LOL.

So wait, I refute your weak ass example, and then you come back with... NUH UH you are the one thats clueless!!!

You are a complete joke.


Cars were way better back then too right?...they don't make em like they used to...
Right, because actual, measurable mechanical quality = judgments on the arts.:oldlol: Jesus **** I cannot believe what an incredible douchebag you are. It literally blows my mind that you just compared advances in the internal combustion engine to how much people like movies from different time periods. Just stop posting. Forever. Eat shit. And stop posting. Your idiocy isn't even tolerable.

[johndeeregreen]

Oh, and I almost forgot, f*ck you. Not because I have anything against you, its just that people as delusional as yourself deserve to be told what colossal **** you are.

[Lebron23]

Speaking of older movies. The Fall of the Roman Empire is the 1960's version of Ridley Scott's Gladiator. Gladiator is a much better movie, and it looks more realistic. Phoenix was also a much better Commudus than Christopher Plummer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/Fall_of_roman_empire_%281964%29.jpeg

[-p.tiddy-]

:oldlol:

I didn't compare anything

and I came with much more than "no you are clueless"...like almost this entire fcking thread, most of if with Don though, who just thought you meant that I was retarded for assuming The Huster won Oscars BACK THEN. :oldlol:

[bdreason]

Art isn't getting better. If anything, it is deteriorating as less emphasis is placed on Art in our school systems, and Corporate America is only interested in promoting Art that can turn a profit (i.e. pop music for teens, Action films for theaters).

[-p.tiddy-]

Art isn't getting better. If anything, it is deteriorating as less emphasis is placed on Art in our school systems, and Corporate America is only interested in promoting Art that can turn a profit (i.e. pop music for teens, Action films for theaters).
Art is being given more emphasis in schools. SMU now has a video game degree that didn't exist when I was in Art School.

You have to look past the profit turning Crap and use the best stuff...but todays POP Crap and action still blows away Chubbie Checker and the Lone Ranger.


Hell if Lil Waynes music, who most consider garbage, came out before Run DMC it would be considered mind blowing, he would be labeled GOAT instead of garbage.

Wayne is who he is because of all the influence given to him from those before him.

[Jello]

God this guy's an idiot.
"If _____ came out now, would it be good? of course not. Films of today are better."
Wtf kind of debate is this? :biggums:

[-p.tiddy-]

It's about art progression...and the mediums progressing.

[-p.tiddy-]

Let's play quote the Don lol



Goodness you are dense, you still have no clue why John asked you if you were retarded, do you? But then again, I have to remind myself that I'm talking to the guy who thinks Jesus' legal last name is Christ :olol

I was right about John...and its you that is dense.

[-p.tiddy-]

He was referring to you being a retard, and you still have no clue why and I find that HILARIOUS :oldlol

But I DID know why...you didn't

HILARIOUS YES!!!

[Jello]

It's about art progression...and the mediums progressing.
Cinema has not progressed. It has utilized changes in technology in the direction of increased realism, an attribute that is just your opinion to be better. Better technology gives filmmakers and directors the ability to have a larger societal and time context than they did in the past. The ability to draw emotion, convey a story, and demonstrate an idea is still the same goal. The manner in which this is done changes but it does not get better or worse.

[-p.tiddy-]

Cinema has not progressed. It has utilized changes in technology in the direction of increased realism, an attribute that is just your opinion to be better. Better technology gives filmmakers and directors the ability to have a larger societal and time context than they did in the past. The ability to draw emotion, convey a story, and demonstrate an idea is still the same goal. The manner in which this is done changes but it does not get better or worse.
you're wrong ...cinema without question has progressed

The film makers and actors have also progressed due to influence

Do you think Chaplin has the same skill set as Christian Bale? Why not? Is it because times have changed?

The end product we receive is better...

[Jello]

you're wrong ...cinema without question has progressed

The film makers and actors have also progressed due to influence

Do you think Chaplin has the same skill set as Christian Bale? Why not? Is it because times have changed?

The end product we receive is better...
Stop comparing single films and actors you ****ing idiot. The point is art from different periods is not inherently better. Is contemporary art better than romantic art? No it's not.
What is the goal of cinema to you? Answer that first. Because your sense of art is like one of a middle schooler.

[-p.tiddy-]

Stop comparing single films and actors you ****ing idiot. The point is art from different periods is not inherently better. Is contemporary art better than romantic art? No it's not.
What is the goal of cinema to you? Answer that first. Because your sense of art is like one of a middle schooler.
It is inherently better, the goal is entertainment

Why do you think kids today are more entertained by modern films? Is that just some strange coincidence? Old movies are just as entertaining right? Well how come they arent watching them?

[Jello]

It is inherently better, the goal is entertainment

Why do you think kids today are more entertained by modern films? Is that just some strange coincidence? Old movies are just as entertaining right? Well how come they arent watching them?
So contemporary art is better than romantic art? Romantic art is better than art from the renaissance? Are you seriously this stupid?

Are kids entertained by movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy? Most commercial modern movies are episodic with disjointed storylines with a dose of visual eye candy only possible by modern technology.

[-p.tiddy-]

So contemporary art is better than romantic art? Romantic art is better than art from the renaissance? Are you seriously this stupid?

Are kids entertained by movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy? Most commercial modern movies are episodic with disjointed storylines with a dose of visual eye candy only possible by modern technology.
Um Modern art is influenced by classic art...

People today are more entertained with modern


Art progression is extreme in the video game industry, where I have worked the past decade...pong is like our old silent films.


No one is entertained by pong today

[Jello]

Um Modern art is influenced by classic art...

People today are more entertained with modern


Art progression is extreme in the video game industry, where I have worked the past decade...pong is like our old silent films.
Entertainment value has very little to do with it. Idiots like you and 8 year old kids can get entertained by anything.

[-p.tiddy-]

Entertainment value has very little to do with it. Idiots like you and 8 year old kids can get entertained by anything.
Entertainment has EVERYTHING to do with it.

It's the entire purpose.

[Jello]

Entertainment has EVERYTHING to do with it.

It's the entire purpose.
No it's not. Cinema is art. Art is the expression of the subjective.

[-p.tiddy-]

No it's not. Cinema is art. Art is the expression of the subjective.
Film medium is meant to entertain, movies that is

[Dbrog]

Um Modern art is influenced by classic art...

People today are more entertained with modern


Art progression is extreme in the video game industry, where I have worked the past decade...pong is like our old silent films.


No one is entertained by pong today

Are you really gonna go there? People are still entertained by Super Mario (see new super mario bros) and it's basically the same formula as it was back in the day (see Pokemon as well which is LITERALLY the same game). Old games are MUCH better than new ones in many cases (compare final fantasy's, compare Diablo/Baldurs Gate to new WRPGs,etc etc). The only genre that has really progressed is shooters and even then you could argue CSS and Deus-Ex are miles ahead of the CoDs and Battlefields of the world. I mean, are you really arguing that games haven't been dumbed down in the past 10 years?

Btw, you mention pong but fail to mention Pac-Man which sold very well and got great acclaim just recently (see: pacman championship ed). Millions upon millions of people are entertained by ANGRY FKING BIRDS. Do you really think they wouldn't be entertained by games like missile command and space invaders if they had a few bells and whistles added?

[Jello]

Film medium is meant to entertain, movies that is
:facepalm One of the most powerful art mediums regarded only for entertainment value. I'm ****ing speechless.

[Dbrog]

:facepalm One of the most powerful art mediums regarded only for entertainment value. I'm ****ing speechless.

Well tbh, he basically listed Pulp Fiction as one of his favorite movies. Based on that, do you really think he's going to like movies from 30s-60s?

[-p.tiddy-]

Are you really gonna go there? People are still entertained by Super Mario (see new super mario bros) and it's basically the same formula as it was back in the day (see Pokemon as well which is LITERALLY the same game). Old games are MUCH better than new ones in many cases (compare final fantasy's, compare Diablo/Baldurs Gate to new WRPGs,etc etc). The only genre that has really progressed is shooters and even then you could argue CSS and Deus-Ex are miles ahead of the CoDs and Battlefields of the world. I mean, are you really arguing that games haven't been dumbed down in the past 10 years?

Btw, you mention pong but fail to mention Pac-Man which sold very well and got great acclaim just recently (see: pacman championship ed). Millions upon millions of people are entertained by ANGRY FKING BIRDS. Do you really think they wouldn't be entertained by games like missile command and space invaders if they had a few bells and whistles added?
I've been a video game dev for over a decade dude... :facepalm no one is buying old games like pong and pacman anymore...there isn't a market for that stuff any longer.

[-p.tiddy-]

okay....:facepalm


video games haven't progressed at all since pong

and movies haven't progressed since silent films


you guys win...I give up

[Jello]

okay....:facepalm


video games haven't progressed at all since pong

and movies haven't progressed since silent films


you guys win...I give up
You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are. I don't really blame you man. Continue with your shallow point of view.

[-p.tiddy-]

You're too stupid to realize how stupid you are. I don't really blame you man. Continue with your shallow point of view.
okay you stupid, stupid head

[Dbrog]

Guys, I get it now!

List of D. Piddy's previous work as a game dev:

http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/superman6412495699951.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ns0cz6ycy_s/SsCILXV1HPI/AAAAAAAAC7g/mYp5uyNKdPw/s400/3.JPG
http://mortarandpistol.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing-anyone-1652.jpg
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/pics/duke-nukem-forever-209536.jpg


"Look how the art has progressed over time!" :oldlol:

[-p.tiddy-]

Way to compare a comedic legend to a primadonna dramatic actor.

Charlie Chaplin is a much better physical actor, hilarious, can direct, write, and is a f*cking legend.
he IS a legend, no doubt

but you seriously think his skill set is better than Bale's is today? Okay well I dissagree

[-p.tiddy-]

Guys, I get it now!

List of D. Piddy's previous work as a game dev:

http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/superman6412495699951.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ns0cz6ycy_s/SsCILXV1HPI/AAAAAAAAC7g/mYp5uyNKdPw/s400/3.JPG
http://mortarandpistol.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing-anyone-1652.jpg
http://www.vgchartz.com/games/pics/duke-nukem-forever-209536.jpg


"Look how the art has progressed over time!" :oldlol:
you're young I can tell...but here:

[Dbrog]

:oldlol: Yay games that are 100% shallow (except Borderlands)! Anyway, I think I'm done here but congrats if you really dev'ed on those games.

Oh and I think it's funny how you call me young when I compared old games to games of today (I grew up playing Atari 2600 btw). In case you haven't noticed, young gamers won't even touch games from the 90s let alone from the 80s...they think they are unplayable and suck (which makes me think you are lying about being a game dev).

[-p.tiddy-]

:oldlol: Yay games that are 100% shallow (except Borderlands)! Anyway, I think I'm done here but congrats if you really dev'ed on those games.

Oh and I think it's funny how you call me young when I compared old games to games of today (I grew up playing Atari 2600 btw).
I grew up on the 2600 as well

do you still play on that system today?

[-p.tiddy-]

lol, how funny that you like Borerlands of all those...oh what a COINCIDENCE!!!...IT'S THE NEWEST ONE ON THE LIST!!!

[-p.tiddy-]

:oldlol: Yay games that are 100% shallow (except Borderlands)! Anyway, I think I'm done here but congrats if you really dev'ed on those games.

Oh and I think it's funny how you call me young when I compared old games to games of today (I grew up playing Atari 2600 btw). In case you haven't noticed, young gamers won't even touch games from the 90s let alone from the 80s...they think they are unplayable and suck (which makes me think you are lying about being a game dev).
exactly!!!

why do you think that is???

[Dbrog]

lol, how funny that you like Borerlands of all those...oh what a COINCIDENCE!!!...IT'S THE NEWEST ONE ON THE LIST!!!

It's also the only one that actually has good writing (genuinely funny).

[Dbrog]

exactly!!!

why do you think that is???

I don't understand how sales = quality. You really think Call of Duty is better than Half-Life 2? It's the same with movies. The Oscar winners almost never have a large box-office gross. I guess you think graphics = most important in both movies and games (cause that's what most young people think...hence why they don't play old games).

[DonDadda59]

It is inherently better, the goal is entertainment

Why do you think kids today are more entertained by modern films? Is that just some strange coincidence? Old movies are just as entertaining right? Well how come they arent watching them?

So basically, the measure of a film's quality is based on what kids find entertaining? So if a kid goes to the theater and catches Wrath of the Titans and then he goes home and his dad has him watch say Raging Bull, the quality of those movies would be measured by which one the kid was more entertained by? Do you consider Michael Bay the GOAT director? :confusedshrug:

I think you are making a big mistake by thinking that video games and film (and cars too I guess :oldlol: ) are comparable as mediums. No offense, but for someone who considers themselves versed in art, you come off as extremely shallow.

[DonDadda59]

I'm saying you shouldn't compare them, they do different things. Bale doesn't do comedies.

Also, yeah, Chaplin is a far better physical performer. You seem to not separate different parts of an actor's repertoire.

Yeah, the comparison makes no sense, especially since Chaplain was BY FAR the more versatile artist (decorated actor, writer, director, composer). Chaplain would have a far easier time doing what Bale does than vice versa. But it doesn't mean one is progression or the other regression, just different performers from different times.

[-p.tiddy-]

I don't understand how sales = quality. You really think Call of Duty is better than Half-Life 2? It's the same with movies. The Oscar winners almost never have a large box-office gross. I guess you think graphics = most important in both movies and games (cause that's what most young people think...hence why they don't play old games).
sales = what people want and are entertained by

but yeah it doesn't always mean what is better...but the games you are claiming are just as good (pacman and old mario) have no demand today....like you said kids think they suck!!!...it's because today's games are more entertaining than pacman!!!

[-p.tiddy-]

So basically, the measure of a film's quality is based on what kids find entertaining? So if a kid goes to the theater and catches Wrath of the Titans and then he goes home and his dad has him watch say Raging Bull, the quality of those movies would be measured by which one the kid was more entertained by? Do you consider Michael Bay the GOAT director? :confusedshrug:

I think you are making a big mistake by thinking that video games and film (and cars too I guess :oldlol: ) are comparable as mediums. No offense, but for someone who considers themselves versed in art, you come off as extremely shallow.
how is what I am saying shallow?

the game industry and movie industry have many similar aspects though...but the game industry progresses faster because it is MUCH more tech driven. Story and movie elements are now in games, even famed acters for voices.

and no I never said kids are a measure, but the fact they are more entertaned by modern films says something imo

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, the comparison makes no sense, especially since Chaplain was BY FAR the more versatile artist (decorated actor, writer, director, composer). Chaplain would have a far easier time doing what Bale does than vice versa. But it doesn't mean one is progression or the other regression, just different performers from different times.
yes...this

one was able to learn from greats (like Chaplin) and progress from that...

how can you deny that today's actor's aren't influenced?

are you not influenced from greats in the past?...you have AN EDGE because of that...you can grow from them

[DonDadda59]

how is what I am saying shallow?

the game industry and movie industry have many similar aspects though...but the game industry progresses faster because it is MUCH more tech driven. Story and movie elements are now in games, even famed acters for voices.

Exactly my point. Games are meant pretty much solely for entertainment purposes. There is room for artistic expression, but for the most part it's meant to entertain. I personally don't think that's the main purpose of film as an art form. You have the obvious popcorn flicks that are just mindless entertainment but for the most part I think film is about expression, commentary (social and otherwise), and evocation (of emotion, thought, etc), Even the technical aspects such as lighting can be used as means to the ends I just mentioned.

It's extremely shallow to say that one movie>another from a past generation because kids are more entertained by one or the other. Films should be judged on their content and merit, not sales.


and no I never said kids are a measure, but the fact they are more entertaned by modern films says something imo

Yeah, it says they can watch modern movies more easily and readily than past films. And judging quality by what entertains children is flawed reasoning at best.

[Dbrog]

sales = what people want and are entertained by

but yeah it doesn't always mean what is better...but the games you are claiming are just as good (pacman and old mario) have no demand today....like you said kids think they suck!!!...it's because today's games are more entertaining than pacman!!!

So, you're basically saying that there's no point for a Dev to make a great game if there's no demand for it. I completely get that viewpoint. I really do and it makes sense from a business stand point. However, I just don't understand how someone who supposedly loves "art" can say that. I mean, going by those parameters, our civilization would end up like the one in Idiocracy (movie). We would have never had many of the classical composers. People would never get to see some of the movies from Tarkovsky, Lynch, Malick, etc etc. Like I said, I see it from a business standpoint, but if you love art, that statement is horrifying.

[DonDadda59]

yes...this

one was able to learn from greats (like Chaplin) and progress from that...

how can you deny that today's actor's aren't influenced?

are you not influenced from greats in the past?...you have AN EDGE because of that...you can grow from them

But what do you consider as progress? There hasn't been any seismic shifts in acting since probably the late 50s-60s with the rise of Strasberg's method being employed in film. Christian Bale hasn't done anything at all revolutionary as an artist. Has he surpassed actors like Brando, Pacino, Deniro, etc who were doing their thing before he was even born? IMO no. He's just your typical method actor (and is sometimes over the top to hilarious or annoying degrees; see: Batman :oldlol: ). I'm sure he was influenced by past method actors, but he clearly hasn't 'progressed' beyond those guys.

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing that acotrs learn and practice today that actors in the 60s weren't. Meisner, method, classical- those are the main schools of thought with some variation within each that any aspiring actor will study. Same as it has been since Strasberg's playhouse took off many decades ago.

I really think you should study up on the subject before speaking out about it. It would make this thing go a lot smoother.

[Dbrog]

Exactly my point. Games are meant pretty much solely for entertainment purposes. There is room for artistic expression, but for the most part it's meant to entertain. I personally don't think that's the main purpose of film as an art form. You have the obvious popcorn flicks that are just mindless entertainment but for the most part I think film is about expression, commentary (social and otherwise), and evocation (of emotion, thought, etc), Even the technical aspects such as lighting can be used as means to the ends I just mentioned.

I actually disagree with this. Games are certainly just as valid as movies as far as being avenues for art. Like movies, there are the "big summer/winter blockbusters" but there are also games that focus almost completely on art (vagrant story, earthworm jim, limbo, etc). Even then, they can certainly overlap. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with comparing the cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia to Uncharted 2. Both beautiful and large budget products that also have great writing/stories.

[-p.tiddy-]

Exactly my point. Games are meant pretty much solely for entertainment purposes. There is room for artistic expression, but for the most part it's meant to entertain. I personally don't think that's the main purpose of film as an art form. You have the obvious popcorn flicks that are just mindless entertainment but for the most part I think film is about expression, commentary (social and otherwise), and evocation (of emotion, thought, etc), Even the technical aspects such as lighting can be used as means to the ends I just mentioned.

It's extremely shallow to say that one movie>another from a past generation because kids are more entertained by one or the other. Films should be judged on their content and merit, not sales.
I don't see how that is being shallow...that's just a preference, I could say you are being shallow declaring that everything is has always been the same since it started.

films ARE judged by their merit...that merit has much to do with when it came out and how groundbreaking it was and the new trends it set and etc.

Films like Citizen Kane are very highly praised for those reasons...not because people today are still highly entertained by it TODAY.



Yeah, it says they can watch modern movies more easily and readily than past films. And judging quality by what entertains children is flawed reasoning at best.

what if there were statisics that showed adults were more entertained by newer films compared to old?...would that hold any weight?

[DonDadda59]

I actually disagree with this. Games are certainly just as valid as movies as far as being avenues for art. Like movies, there are the "big summer/winter blockbusters" but there are also games that focus almost completely on art. Even then, they can certainly overlap. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with comparing the cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia to Uncharted 2. Both beautiful and large budget products that also have great writing/stories.

I said that there is room for artistic expression in games, there's no questioning that.... but it doesn't change the fact that the main purpose of video games is entertainment. Prime would agree I think, and he's thinking games=film which is why he thinks the main purpose of film is entertainment. There is a massive difference between sitting in a theater and watching a film and having a controller in your hand and playing the latest game release.

But that's not to say there aren't plenty of examples of art in video gaming, because clearly there is. The intrinsic purpose of film vs gaming is different IMO.

[-p.tiddy-]

But what do you consider as progress? There hasn't been any seismic shifts in acting since probably the late 50s-60s with the rise of Strasberg's method being employed in film. Christian Bale hasn't done anything at all revolutionary as an artist. Has he surpassed actors like Brando, Pacino, Deniro, etc who were doing their thing before he was even born? IMO no. He's just your typical method actor (and is sometimes over the top to hilarious or annoying degrees; see: Batman :oldlol: ). I'm sure he was influenced by past method actors, but he clearly hasn't 'progressed' beyond those guys.

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing that acotrs learn and practice today that actors in the 60s weren't. Meisner, method, classical- those are the main schools of thought with some variation within each that any aspiring actor will study. Same as it has been since Strasberg's playhouse took off many decades ago.

I really think you should study up on the subject before speaking out about it. It would make this thing go a lot smoother.
okay so acting has progressed though from today since before that shift you speak of?

you do admit that somethings have advanced in that feild???

Bale was just and example of the top of my head, but I am sure he has a much greater skill set than most if not ALL the actors in Chaplin's day.

[-p.tiddy-]

Don, if I didn't have artists from the past to learn from and be influenced by, I would be a MUCH MUCH MUCH worse artist...I don't even know what I would be able capable of but it wouldn't be as nice.


Is it silly for me to assume that you are a better actor today for the same reasons...because you have been influenced by others before you and learned?

what kind of actor would you be today if you had never seen a movie post 1920???...if you had no teachers to learn from???...TIME has given you an edge has it not?...it's okay to admit I am right here

[DonDadda59]

I don't see how that is being shallow...that's just a preference, I could say you are being shallow declaring that everything is has always been the same since it started.

films ARE judged by their merit...that merit has much to do with when it came out and how groundbreaking it was and the new trends it set and etc.

Films like Citizen Kane are very highly praised for those reasons...not because people today are still highly entertained by it TODAY.

Comes down to a difference in philosophy I suppose. I think films should be judged on writing, directing, acting, cinematography, content and so on... not by what captures childrens' attention. There are plenty of teenage girls out there who will probably tell you the Twilight movies are the best ever. Those movies have made a ton of money, so obviously the demand is there. But would you say that because kids today are more entertained by movies like that, Twilight: Breaking Dawn> Pulp Fiction? I mean, you'd have a really hard time finding any kid entertained by PF over Transformers, Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.

So obviously Twilight>>>Pulp Fiction right?



what if there were statisics that showed adults were more entertained by newer films compared to old?...would that hold any weight?

Again, film or any art medium should be judged on merit not sales and . If we're going by what the public is entertained by, American Idol is the best show ever, Twilight and Hunger Games are some of the best movies ever, etc.

It is an extremely flawed way of judging art. And it is very shallow.

[Dbrog]

I said that there is room for artistic expression in games, there's no questioning that.... but it doesn't change the fact that the main purpose of video games is entertainment. Prime would agree I think, and he's thinking games=film which is why he thinks the main purpose of film is entertainment. There is a massive difference between sitting in a theater and watching a film and having a controller in your hand and playing the latest game release.

But that's not to say there are plenty of examples of art in video gaming, because clearly there is. The intrinsic purpose of film vs gaming is different IMO.

Again, I think that's just your view on the industry and not everyone's as a whole. I know for myself, I actually play some games for the sole purpose of their art. It's exactly the same for movies. Sometimes I'm in the mood to just be entertained (Indiana Jones, Aliens, Sonic 3&Knuckles, God of War, etc) and sometimes I'm in the mood to just watch/play art (Stalker, The Conformist, Dark Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, etc).

Point being in my eyes, films and games can BOTH be intrinsically for artistic or entertainment purposes.

[-p.tiddy-]

Comes down to a difference in philosophy I suppose. I think films should be judged on writing, directing, acting, cinematography, content and so on... not by what captures childrens' attention. There are plenty of teenage girls out there who will probably tell you the Twilight movies are the best ever. Those movies have made a ton of money, so obviously the demand is there. But would you say that because kids today are more entertained by movies like that, Twilight: Breaking Dawn> Pulp Fiction? I mean, you'd have a really hard time finding any kid entertained by PF over Transformers, Twilight, Harry Potter, etc.

So obviously Twilight>>>Pulp Fiction right?.
okay what about Twilight > (female teens favorite genre in the 40s) ???

like comparing it to it's "old days" equal

:confusedshrug:

I agree though that "kid flicks" are bad to use here...but even those have progressed...like today's garbage action flicks being better than The Lone Ranger



Again, film or any art medium should be judged on merit not sales and . If we're going by what the public is entertained by, American Idol is the best show ever, Twilight and Hunger Games are some of the best movies ever, etc.

It is an extremely flawed way of judging art. And it is very shallow.

well I started by using the Oscars, that is merit right?...we have to find something to use a baramoter or it is just "this is better because I said it is, the fact that no one watches it any more doesn't mean anything"

[Jackass18]

Hmmm, I can't figure out if Prime is just trolling us or if he's borderline retarded.

[-p.tiddy-]

Again, I think that's just your view on the industry and not everyone's as a whole. I know for myself, I actually play some games for the sole purpose of their art. It's exactly the same for movies. Sometimes I'm in the mood to just be entertained (Indiana Jones, Aliens, Sonic 3&Knuckles, God of War, etc) and sometimes I'm in the mood to just watch/play art (Stalker, The Conformist, Dark Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, etc).

Point being in my eyes, films and games can BOTH be intrinsically for artistic or entertainment purposes.
I have also purchased games just for art reasons, I did that with Rage, didn't care to play really, just wanted to see the art...but I am in the minority I think, so are you


I think the vast majority of people that buy games and go to movies just want to be entertained...

[-p.tiddy-]

Hmmm, I can't figure out if Prime is just trolling us or if he's borderline retarded.
well we know you're trolling

[DonDadda59]

Don, if I didn't have artists from the past to learn from and be influenced by, I would be a MUCH MUCH MUCH worse artist...I don't even know what I would be able capable of but it wouldn't be as nice.


Is it silly for me to assume that you are a better actor today for the same reasons...because you have been influenced by others before you and learned?

what kind of actor would you be today if you had never seen a movie post 1920???...if you had no teachers to learn from???...TIME has given you an edge has it not?...it's okay to admit I am right here

Of course artists today are influenced by past artists. But to you that automatically means 'progression'. I'm sure there are millions of painters out there who were/are influenced by Michaelangelo but just because they've seen his work and studied it, doesn't mean whatever they paint will surpass his works just because they are doing it in modern times, does it?

I could study Deniro, Pacino, Washington, Day-Lewis all day everyday... doesn't mean I will automatically be a better actor then them just because I may have been influenced by them.

Again, you have a very narrow and shallow view of art. Just look at mainstream film right now- it seems like Hollywood has completely run out of original ideas and now they're just churning out remakes of 80s TV shows (if you've seen 21 Jump Street they even make fun of themselves for doing this in the movie). It's that or adaptations of books written for teenage girls.

Now you may view that as 'progression' but personally I see that as stagnation and laziness. But as with all art, there are ebbs and flows. I thought 2007 was one of the best years for film ever (There will be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Assassination of Jesse James). But since then it's been hit or miss for film, with many foreign films outshining Hollywood's 80s recycling machine (see Un Prophete if you haven't already :D ).

You can't make blanket statements like everything today>>>>everything yesterday or vice versa. That just makes you come off as ignorant and shallow, especially troubling considering you think of yourself as an artist.

Anyway, got an audition to get to, we can continue this later :cheers:

[Dbrog]

okay what about Twilight > (female teens favorite genre in the 40s) ???

like comparing it to it's "old days" equal

well I started by using the Oscars, that is merit right?...we have to find something to use a baramoter or it is just "this is better because I said it is, the fact that no one watches it any more doesn't mean anything"

I definitely see example which direct comparisons can yield the results you are talking about. For instance, I enjoyed Gladiator much more than Spartacus. However, comparing big budget epics, I enjoyed Lawrence of Arabia more than Lord of the Rings. I could go back and fourth on many different movies in the same way. That would be my reasoning for why movies haven't gotten better OR worse over time. Kinda like Don was saying, they've just changed.

[-p.tiddy-]

Of course artists today are influenced by past artists. But to you that automatically means 'progression'. I'm sure there are millions of painters out there who were/are influenced by Michaelangelo but just because they've seen his work and studied it, doesn't mean whatever they paint will surpass his works just because they are doing it in modern times, does it?

I could study Deniro, Pacino, Washington, Day-Lewis all day everyday... doesn't mean I will automatically be a better actor then them just because I may have been influenced by them.

Again, you have a very narrow and shallow view of art. Just look at mainstream film right now- it seems like Hollywood has completely run out of original ideas and now they're just churning out remakes of 80s TV shows (if you've seen 21 Jump Street they even make fun of themselves for doing this in the movie). It's that or adaptations of books written for teenage girls.

Now you may view that as 'progression' but personally I see that as stagnation and laziness. But as with all art, there are ebbs and flows. I thought 2007 was one of the best years for film ever (There will be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Assassination of Jesse James). But since then it's been hit or miss for film, with many foreign films outshining Hollywood's 80s recycling machine (see Un Prophete if you haven't already :D ).

You can't make blanket statements like everything today>>>>everything yesterday or vice versa. That just makes you come off as ignorant and shallow, especially troubling considering you think of yourself as an artist.

Anyway, got an audition to get to, we can continue this later :cheers:
It doesn't mean you will be better, of course not...but it does give everyone today something to grow on. The artists that are actually born with high talent now have past works to be influenced by.

Every artist in the video game industry has been highly influenced by past art...you can see it everywhere

I don't think it is out line to say that the movie industry is the similar or the same...I see influence there from past movies

and AGAIN I never said "everything > everything" lol stop doing that, and I don't consider any of this shallow, I think this is something I think many artists are very aware of...in art school we learned from those before us, as well as those around us.

[Dbrog]

But since then it's been hit or miss for film, with many foreign films outshining Hollywood's 80s recycling machine (see Un Prophete if you haven't already :D ).


I've been looking for some good modern foreign movies (seen Run Lola Run, City of God, Old Boy, Let the Right One In, The Lives of Others). Un Prophete looks very interesting, are there any more that you would recommend? :D

[-p.tiddy-]

I definitely see example which direct comparisons can yield the results you are talking about. For instance, I enjoyed Gladiator much more than Spartacus. However, comparing big budget epics, I enjoyed Lawrence of Arabia more than Lord of the Rings. I could go back and fourth on many different movies in the same way. That would be my reasoning for why movies haven't gotten better OR worse over time. Kinda like Don was saying, they've just changed.
what if the majority preferred LOTR over Arabia though?

what if the majority almost always sided with the modern version in terms of what they find entertaining?

would that not give an indication that the industry has progressed for the better?....in terms of entertainment anyway?

[Jackass18]

well I started by using the Oscars, that is merit right?...we have to find something to use a baramoter or it is just "this is better because I said it is, the fact that no one watches it any more doesn't mean anything"

AFI updated their list in 2007. Foreign films don't get consideration (which may be somewhat fitting since you've probably never seen one). Here's a breakdown by decade:

'10s: 1
'20s: 3
'30s: 12
'40s: 11
'50s: 16
'60s: 17
'70s: 20
'80s: 8
'90s: 11
'00s: 1

The '70s alone has as many films as the '80s, '90s and '00s combined. More and more movies get made per decade as time has gone on, so the later decades have an advantage (granted, the '00s were a bit handicapped since there was only 7-8 years worth of movies to by).

[Dbrog]

what if the majority preferred LOTR over Arabia though?

what if the majority almost always sided with the modern version in terms of what they find entertaining?

would that not give an indication that the industry has progressed for the better?....in terms of entertainment anyway?

Not unless you consider sales the primary factor in "progression." The masses are largely not into movies as much as people on message boards discussing them. I mean hell, didn't Green Lantern make over 100mil? I'm pretty sure the masses have never seen a single movie up for best picture in the Oscars (maybe 1 some years). Not saying the Oscars are always indicative of the best movies...there are certainly snubs...but even so, just look at those movies. They are completely 100% different from most "mainstream" movies. I mean, almost everyone I know refused to go see the Artist with me because it was so "old school." By your logic, the Artist is not an example of progressing...but Transformers is. Do you see how fked that is?

[Jackass18]

what if the majority preferred LOTR over Arabia though?

what if the majority almost always sided with the modern version in terms of what they find entertaining?

would that not give an indication that the industry has progressed for the better?....in terms of entertainment anyway?

No, stop going with this box office nonsense. Box office does not indicate quality.

[-p.tiddy-]

No, stop going with this box office nonsense. Box office does not indicate quality.
I wasn't refering to ticket sales at all

what is that list you posted exactly?

[-p.tiddy-]

Not unless you consider sales the primary factor in "progression." The masses are largely not into movies as much as people on message boards discussing them. I mean hell, didn't Green Lantern make over 100mil? I'm pretty sure the masses have never seen a single movie up for best picture in the Oscars (maybe 1 some years). Not saying the Oscars are always indicative of the best movies...there are certainly snubs...but even so, just look at those movies. They are completely 100% different from most "mainstream" movies. I mean, almost everyone I know refused to go see the Artist with me because it was so "old school." By your logic, the Artist is not an example of progressing...but Transformers is. Do you see how fked that is?
yeah ticket sales are nothing...Green Latern got horrid reviews

but let me ask you this and please try to answer honestly, what do you think the reviews for Green Latern would be like if it came out at the same time as the fist Reeve's Superman movie?...do you think the reviews would still be the same as they are today?...or would people be blown away?

[Dbrog]

AFI updated their list in 2007. snip

I typically hate lists like this. I definitely believe they don't give newer films a fair shake. For instance, Dark Knight is one of my favorite movies of all time and yet even on top 1000 lists, it only ranks in the 700s or worse. I DEFINITELY would put it over things like Ben Hur (too long, some laughable acting moments, horrible props...interesting characters, FKING AMAZING CHARIOT SCENE) or The Graduate (funny 1st half, but 2nd half just doesn't stand up since it was basically only significant/relevant because of the time it came out).

I think this is the point that T. Piddy is doing a horrible job making. There are numerous "classics" that have gone from great to good over time due to the loss of cultural significance. They simply don't have the same effect as they did when they came out. However, this is not to say there aren't timeless "classics" that can be enjoyed by any generation (see all of Hitchcock's, Coppola's, etc, works). I would even argue that more of those exist than the ones that lose their effect.

[Dbrog]

yeah ticket sales are nothing...Green Latern got horrid reviews

but let me ask you this and please try to answer honestly, what do you think the reviews for Green Latern would be like if it came out at the same time as the fist Reeve's Superman movie?...do you think the reviews would still be the same as they are today?...or would people be blown away?

Of course they would be blown away but it's not like it would be a best picture candidate or anything. It wasn't like the original Superman was some masterpiece (nominated Oscars for editing, music, and sound). I would guess Green Lantern could be nominated too but I don't think it would win anything or have any greater prestige (or lack there of) than Superman did.

Edit: Actually funny you should bring up that year. Days of Heaven still has some of the best cinematography of any movie in history and it's like 40 yrs old. Green Lantern is abysmal by comparison.

[RidonKs]

Of course artists today are influenced by past artists. But to you that automatically means 'progression'. I'm sure there are millions of painters out there who were/are influenced by Michaelangelo but just because they've seen his work and studied it, doesn't mean whatever they paint will surpass his works just because they are doing it in modern times, does it?

I could study Deniro, Pacino, Washington, Day-Lewis all day everyday... doesn't mean I will automatically be a better actor then them just because I may have been influenced by them.

Again, you have a very narrow and shallow view of art. Just look at mainstream film right now- it seems like Hollywood has completely run out of original ideas and now they're just churning out remakes of 80s TV shows (if you've seen 21 Jump Street they even make fun of themselves for doing this in the movie). It's that or adaptations of books written for teenage girls.

Now you may view that as 'progression' but personally I see that as stagnation and laziness. But as with all art, there are ebbs and flows. I thought 2007 was one of the best years for film ever (There will be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Assassination of Jesse James). But since then it's been hit or miss for film, with many foreign films outshining Hollywood's 80s recycling machine (see Un Prophete if you haven't already :D ).

You can't make blanket statements like everything today>>>>everything yesterday or vice versa. That just makes you come off as ignorant and shallow, especially troubling considering you think of yourself as an artist.

Anyway, got an audition to get to, we can continue this later :cheers:
:applause:



It doesn't mean you will be better, of course not...but it does give everyone today something to grow on. The artists that are actually born with high talent now have past works to be influenced by.
dude. artists with high talent are born in all time periods. they come, leave their mark, and go, and have consistently since the beginning of history. the guy's you're discrediting because of your seriously whiggish superiority compmlex with regard to art from past generations were also artists born of high talent. they did their thing and revolutionized the platform. EVERYBODY at the time loved them. were the people who loved charlie chaplin dumber than the people who love Christian Bale? of course not. chaplin changed was a megastar during an important transitory phase in cinema history. a ridiculously talented man who did his thing in a different time period. one you don't happen to live in, and without any familiarity, you're immediately dismissing a different form of expression. everybody is telling you the same thing. but that's no change. lol

[Jackass18]

yeah ticket sales are nothing...Green Latern got horrid reviews

but let me ask you this and please try to answer honestly, what do you think the reviews for Green Latern would be like if it came out at the same time as the fist Reeve's Superman movie?...do you think the reviews would still be the same as they are today?...or would people be blown away?

If you put a shit movie from today back when Superman came out, then people would be blown away by the special effects, but would think everything else was terrible.

[RaininTwos]

prime has never seen a topic on ish that he couldn't debate everyone with:facepalm

[Jackass18]

I typically hate lists like this.

It's not the greatest list, but it's far, far more credible than anything PT could ever hope to come up with. The thing is the people who vote in them actually understand film and its history. They don't just blindly think that better technology = better movies.

[Dbrog]

It's not the greatest list, but it's far, far more credible than anything PT could ever hope to come up with. The thing is the people who vote in them actually understand film and its history.

I definitely agree with that and honestly, I like AFI's list much more than others (usually top 50 movies are almost exclusively from the 20s - 50s). I DEFINITELY think those films deserve massive amounts of praise, I just think some of the new ones do too :rockon:

[iamgine]

Meh, arts are always subjective. I would rather watch the average movie today (i.e Hunger Games, X Men, etc) than Casablanca. To me, Casablanca is a terribly boring movie.

Heck, most of those Beethoven/Mozart music is noise to me.



No decade is better than others since it's all subjective. Unless we start using objective and measurable criterias.

[RidonKs]

i think the source of primey's glaring bias happens to be the same as the crux of his expertise. you've actually played a role in a number of important breakthroughs in the industry that have transformed video games into a much more artistic medium. that actually happened. video games didn't start with stories and character sketches and adventures and entire universes. at first, well, pacman and space invaders weren't exactly art, unless you really want to stretch the definition, in which case it was pretty immature art, if still pretty fun.

the movement of making video games more about story telling and design rather than pure amusement, took off in the 90s, i bet right around when you were starting to take a notice prime. and in turn with improving technology, just look at where we are now. i think it's safe to say that right now, the video game platform or medium or whatever you want to call it is plateauing. there will be variations in the future of course, mostly technological, likely in the realm of virtual reality and motion sensor shit.

i wouldn't say movies are so different than a few unbelievably advanced video games i've come across in the principle don described, the artistic expression versus entertainment value conflict with the best games, few and far between i know, rivaling the very best art we've ever seen with regard to the former.

the point is, you were right there in the thick of this while it was happening. participating in that wild revolution in the video game dev industry has skewed your judgment, and is the source of your lack of appreciation for older art, because of your awe with what's been accomplished with the help of your small but earnest contributions.

that'll be $50 please

[-p.tiddy-]

i think the source of primey's glaring bias happens to be the same as the crux of his expertise. you've actually played a role in a number of important breakthroughs in the industry that have transformed video games into a much more artistic medium. that actually happened. video games didn't start with stories and character sketches and adventures and entire universes. at first, well, pacman and space invaders weren't exactly art, unless you really want to stretch the definition, in which case it was pretty immature art, if still pretty fun.

the movement of making video games more about story telling and design rather than pure amusement, took off in the 90s, i bet right around when you were starting to take a notice prime. and in turn with improving technology, just look at where we are now. i think it's safe to say that right now, the video game platform or medium or whatever you want to call it is plateauing. there will be variations in the future of course, mostly technological, likely in the realm of virtual reality and motion sensor shit.

i wouldn't say movies are so different than a few unbelievably advanced video games i've come across in the principle don described, the artistic expression versus entertainment value conflict with the best games, few and far between i know, rivaling the very best art we've ever seen with regard to the former.

the point is, you were right there in the thick of this while it was happening. participating in that wild revolution in the video game dev industry has skewed your judgment, and is the source of your lack of appreciation for older art, because of your awe with what's been accomplished with the help of your small but earnest contributions.

that'll be $50 please
busy right now but yeah good post...without question my own experiences in the game industry contribute to this opinion...but I know that there are many similarities in the two industries, film and game.

Artistic influence is real though...this is something that was touched on in school for me, before I entered the game industry. Everyone in almost every art related industry is influenced by those before them.

I don't think my judgement is skewed though by it...anyway...gotta go, good post

[-p.tiddy-]

at first, well, pacman and space invaders weren't exactly art, unless you really want to stretch the definition, in which case it was pretty immature art, if still pretty fun.

http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/

had to find this though...:D

lots of the old game art in there...

http://www.selectism.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/the-art-of-video-games-01.jpg

[Smoke117]

Exactly. The only things you can say about movie industry advances that are 100% true:

- There's more CGI.
- There are more movies per year.



There are amazing displays of acting, cinematography, lighting, direction, writing, and practical effects from EVERY decade of cinema. There are no huge advances that render stuff from the past obsolete.

- Silent comedies still make people laugh.
- Film Noirs look better than a large percentage of films today.
- Dialogue, storytelling, camera tricks, originality, literally everything is consistent.
- Film looks better than HD.

There are no stats to claim better movies are being made now. I just don't understand how someone can say that today is light years ahead of anything.

Actually no. Before the 60's a lot of dialogue (including Casablanca) is very unrealistic. The older movies romanticize their subjects. In the early 60s through out the late 60s film started more becoming realistic with it's subjects. The Hustler is a good example of that. Fantastic film and very gritty and realistic. This continues throughout the decade with films like The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy. There is a definite change in tone and realism in film in the 60s and less romanticizing of dialogue where the actors converse as if they are putting on a play. But Film and and theater are very different. Film is more subtle and that's the major change that happened in the 60s. It's a different art to play to the camera than it is to the audience.

[RidonKs]

Actually no. Before the 60's a lot of dialogue (including Casablanca) is very unrealistic. The older movies romanticize their subjects. In the early 60s through out the late 60s film starting becoming realistic. The Hustler is a good example of that. Fantastic film and very gritty and realistic. This continues throughout the decade with films like The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy. There is a definite change in tone and realism in film in the 60s and less romanticizing of dialogue where the actors converse as if they are putting on a play. But Film and and theater are very different. Film is more subtle and that's the major change that happened in 60s. It's a different art to play to the camera than it is to the audience.
yep

[Lebron23]

Actually no. Before the 60's a lot of dialogue (including Casablanca) is very unrealistic. The older movies romanticize their subjects. In the early 60s through out the late 60s film starting becoming realistic. The Hustler is a good example of that. Fantastic film and very gritty and realistic. This continues throughout the decade with films like The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy. There is a definite change in tone and realism in film in the 60s and less romanticizing of dialogue where the actors converse as if they are putting on a play. But Film and and theater are very different. Film is more subtle and that's the major change that happened in 60s. It's a different art to play to the camera than it is to the audience.

:cheers:

[-p.tiddy-]

of course dialgue and script writing is miles better since Casablanca...how can anyone even watch a single scene from that movie and say it is the same as today? IMO The Hustler is very out dated dialgue too.

every facet of flm has improved since then IMO...but we don't need to go in circles, I'll keep that my opinion


There are no stats to claim better movies are being made now. I just don't understand how someone can say that today is light years ahead of anything.

so what if there were statistics of some sort that showed people TODAY get more enjoyment from modern films compared to classic films?

would that mean anything to you?

[DonDadda59]

Actually no. Before the 60's a lot of dialogue (including Casablanca) is very unrealistic. The older movies romanticize their subjects. In the early 60s through out the late 60s film started more becoming realistic with it's subjects. The Hustler is a good example of that. Fantastic film and very gritty and realistic. This continues throughout the decade with films like The Graduate and Midnight Cowboy. There is a definite change in tone and realism in film in the 60s and less romanticizing of dialogue where the actors converse as if they are putting on a play. But Film and and theater are very different. Film is more subtle and that's the major change that happened in the 60s. It's a different art to play to the camera than it is to the audience.

Yes, this man knows what he's talking about. The school of thought that pushed for more realism/naturalism had been around before film was even invented. Stanislavski was teaching his system which was based on realism/naturalism in Russia as far back as the late 19th century. Then the Strasburgs, Meisners, etc of the world went to study with him and brought back his teachings to the US. Then they're students began employing their principles in film, with Brando, Dean, Clift, and a few others being the 'pioneers' in the late 50s-60s film industry. From there, more method actors followed their lead (Deniro, Pacino, Nicholson, etcs). It was a question of convention and philosophy, not a lack of skill from actors who came before the shift to method/realism. Even today, there are theatre snobs who look down on film actors because they shun that style. I can pull articles where theater critics rip major accomplished movie stars like Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts for lack of 'real acting skill' during their sojourn to the stage.

There are plenty of modern actors who have no talent for silent film/miming or have 0 classical training who would be completely lost on a stage even though they are great film actors. Then there are those, past and present who have the versatility to thrive in all mediums and have a mastery of all styles. Take the godfather (pun intended) of the method movement, Marlon Brando.

Here he is playing Brutus in 1953's Julius Caesar (Oscar nominee for best picture): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRceRJAz6_Q

Playing a former boxer in 1954's On the Waterfront (Oscar winner for Best Picture): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeVq1e6JKlw

2 completely different approaches to acting, just 1 year apart. One classic theater, the other more realistic/method-based.

And of course most recognize his work in Apocalypse Now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD0rU6-7sKs

There aren't many actors today with that sort of versatility or ability.

But I'm sure Prime will tell us all about how Ashton Kutcher or Keanu Reeves are the better, more 'progressed' actors solely because they are working today :oldlol:

[johndeeregreen]

I think you are making a big mistake by thinking that video games and film (and cars too I guess :oldlol: ) are comparable as mediums.
The best part is that he tries to deny that he brought this up.

PT: "John you're so f*cking biased I bet you think cars are better just cause they're old!"

Me: "Uh, no? The way the internal combustion engine has involved is a matter of science and it's strides are measurable. COMPLETELY UNLIKE ART."

PT: "Who said I was talking about cars?"

:facepalm

[Jackass18]

of course dialgue and script writing is miles better since Casablanca...how can anyone even watch a single scene from that movie and say it is the same as today? IMO The Hustler is very out dated dialgue too.

Does dialogue from older eras bother you that much? I think the only stylized dialogue that has bothered me at all was in Double Indemnity.

[-p.tiddy-]

The best part is that he tries to deny that he brought this up.

PT: "John you're so f*cking biased I bet you think cars are better just cause they're old!"

Me: "Uh, no? The way the internal combustion engine has involved is a matter of science and it's strides are measurable. COMPLETELY UNLIKE ART."

PT: "Who said I was talking about cars?"

:facepalm
I wasn't comparing them nitwit...I think you know that too

Was just stating that you are a big fan of the "good ol days"...cause you are.

Don't you have a classic car?




The game industry though is comparable, like pointed out in here.

[-p.tiddy-]

Does dialogue from older eras bother you that much? I think the only stylized dialogue that has bothered me at all was in Double Indemnity.
It doesn't bother me but its silly to pretend it hasn't evolved for tge better.

No cursing, its restricting and unrealistic...and very stylized to fit THEATER like just posted earlier.